Skip to main content

Full text of "Calendar : meeting of Budget Committee, Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco"

See other formats


5 CLOSED 
STACKS 



m 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Nol to be taken Jroiu I lie Lihmiy 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 05718 2892 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/calendarmeetingo1993sanf 



NOTE: 



The "Finance Committee" was renamed the "Budget 
Committee" on January 20, 1993. 

The name reverted to "Finance Committee" on January 29, 

1997. 

The name was changed to "Finance and Labor Committee" 
on January 27, 1999. 



3 1223 05718 2892 



)/3tf 



<0 



BOARD of SUPERVISORS 




City Hall 

San Francisco 94 102 

554-5184 



DECEMBER 30, 1992 



NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING 
FINANCE COMMITTEE 

/ft 



DOC! IMCMTS DEPT\ 
JAN 4 1993 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regularly scheduled 
meeting of the Finance Committee for Wednesday, Januai 
1993, at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled. 

The next regular meeting of the Finance Committee will 
be held on Wednesday, January 13, 1993, at 2:00 p.m., in 
the Room 228, City Hall. 




rOHN L. TAYLOR 
/'Clerk of the Board 



POSTED: DECEMBER 30, 1992 



Gov t Documents 
Publ ''c Library 
Civ 'c Center 
s -f- CA 9 4 , 2 



0133 



7 45243 SFPL: ECONO JR 
206 SFPL 11/22/00 5 



'.t6 i 



5?0-^- CALENDAR D0C ' !MPMTS DEPT < 

#3. JAN 2 1993 

I ItfT. <^v MEETING OF 

/ JO I-* FINANCE COMMITTEE SAN FRANCISCO 

I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC LIBRARY 

CrTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1993 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS MIGDEN, HALLINAN, ALIOTO 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR ALIOTO - ITEMS 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 - 16 

CLERK: KAY GULBENGAY 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 

counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

(a) File 146-92-77 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, Community Public Health Service, Epidemiology 
and Disease Control, Sexually Transmitted Disease Control, to apply for a 
grant of $650,000, which includes indirect costs in the amount of $65,000, 
based on twenty percent of salaries, from the Centers for Disease Control, for 
the continued operation of the San Francisco Sexually Transmitted Disease 
Prevention and Training Center for the resident of San Francisco. 
(Department of Public Health) 

(b) File 146-92-78 . [Grant - State/University of California Funds] Resolution 
authorizing the Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, to apply for a grant 
of $180,000, which includes indirect costs based on ten percent of the total 
award, from the University of California at Berkeley, Office of the President, 
to conduct the tobacco-related disease in HIV-infected Homosexual Men 
Research Project. (Department of Public Health) 

(c) File 146-92-79 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse 
Services, to apply for, accept and expend a grant of $175,032 which includes 
indirect costs in the amount of $6,732 based on four percent of the direct costs 
and a required match in the amount of $58,344, which is thirty-five of the 
direct costs, from the McKinney Path Homeless Fund Federal Formula Grant 
for the homeless mentally ill and the mentally ill at risk of becoming homeless; 
providing for ratification of action previously taken. (Department of Public 
Health) 



(d) File 146-92-80 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, to apply for a continuation grant of 
$18,750,000, from the Health Resources and Services Administration to 
continue funding the Ryan White Comprehensive Aids Resources Emergency 
(CARE) Title I Supplemental Grant Project; waiving indirect costs. 
(Department of Public Health) 

(e) File 146-92-81 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department 
of Public Health, Central Administration, MIA Program, apply for, accept and 
expend the Fiscal Year 1992-93 allocation of up to $2,000,000, which includes 
indirect costs of twenty percent of personnel costs, from the State Department 
of Health Services for Legalized Indigent Medical Assistance (LIMA) funds 
under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA); providing for 
ratification of action previously taken. (Department of Public Health) 

(f) File 146-92-82 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department 
of Public Health, Division of Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Forensic 
Services, apply for, accept and expend a grant of $30,584 from the State 
Department of Mental Health for the primary prevention in the schools 
projects; providing for ratification of action previously taken and waiving 
indirect costs. (Department of Public Health) 

(g) File 146-92-83 . [Grant Subvention - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, Community Substance Abuse Services, to accept 
and expend a grant subvention up to the amount of $49,988, which excludes 
indirect costs from the State of California, Department of Alcohol and Drug 
Programs for the development and implementation of five-year master plan 
for substance abuse services in the City and County of San Francisco; waiving 
indirect costs. (Department of Public Health) 

(h) File 192-92-7 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Director of 
the Department of Parking and Traffic to apply for, accept and expend up to 
$80,000 of State funds for participation in the 1993 California Department of 
Transportation's Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal Management (FETSIM) Program, 
for the Mission District Signal System. (Department of Parking and Traffic) 

(i) File 100-92-1.5 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
District Attorney Family Support Bureau, in the of amount $37,500, for 
computer equipment. (District Attorney) 

ACTION: Items c, e and i removed from Consent Calendar. Remainder of Consent 
Calendar recommended. 



Item lc, File 146-92-79. Amended on line 5 after "is" by replacing "35% 
of the Direct costs" with "one-third of the total grant amount" and 
further amended on line 17 after "is" by replacing "35% of the Direct 
costs" with "one-third of the total grant amount". 

New Title : "Authorizing the Department of Public Health, Division of 
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, to apply for, accept and 
expend a grant of $175,032 which includes indirect costs in the amount of 
$6,732 based on four percent of the direct costs and a required match in 
the amount of $58,344, which is one-third of the total grant amount, 
from the McKinney Path Homeless Fund Federal Formula Grant for the 
homeless mentally ill and the mentally ill at risk of becoming homeless; 
providing for ratification of action previously taken." 
Recommended as amended. 

Item le, File 146-92-81, Amended on line 2 (title) after "Program" by 
deleting "apply for" and further amended on line 3 by replacing "20%" 
with "10%"; and on line 18 after "Program' by deleting "apply for"; and 
on line 20 by replacing "20%" with "10%". 

New Title: "Authorizing the Department of Public Health, Central 
Administration, MIA Program, to accept and expend the Fiscal Year 
1992-93 allocation of up to $2,000,000, which includes indirect costs of 
ten percent of personnel costs, from the State Department of Health 
Services for Legalized Indigent Medical Assistance (LIMA) funds under 
the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA); providing for 
ratification of action previously taken." 
Recommended as amended. 

Item li, File 100-92-1.5. Release of $37,500 recommended. Filed. 

REGULAR CALENDAR 

File 203-92-2 . [Quitclaim Deed] Ordinance authorizing and directing execution of 
quitclaim deed by City and County of San Francisco to San Francisco Community 
College District, of City College of San Francisco site located at Ocean Avenue and 
Phelan Avenue; adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1. 
(Supervisor Shelley) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

File 185-92-5 . [Children's Services Plan, 1993-94] Resolution approving the 
Children's Services Plan for the San Francisco Children's Fund in accordance with 
Charter Section 6.415. (Supervisor Achtenberg) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to February 3, 1993 meeting. 

File 127-92-2.1 . [Stadium Operator Admission Tax] Ordinance amending Part III, 
San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 807 providing an exemption from 
the payment of the stadium operator admission tax, by extending for one year, 
through December 31, 1993, the exemption from the payment of admission taxes on 
tickets sold at $17.99 or less. (Supervisor Alioto) 
(Cont'd from 12/16/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to call of the chair. 
(Supervisor Hallinan dissented.) 



5. File 188-92-1 . Hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts with 
Pacific Gas and Electric and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts for the 
purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy water. (Supervisor Migden) 

(Cont'd from 11/18/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Filed. 

6. File 161-92-5.1 . [Redevelopment Agency Budget and Bonds] Resolution approving an 
amendment to the budget of the Redevelopment Agency for fiscal year 1992-93. 
(Supervisor Gonzalez) 

(Cont'd from 12/16/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

7. File 127-92-10 . [Fictitious Business Name Filing Requirement] Ordinance 
amending Part III, Municipal Code, by adding Section 75.1 to require persons filing a 
statement of fictitious business name pursuant to California Business and Professions 
Code Section 17900 et seq. to provide proof of compliance, including payment of all 
appropriate license fees, with all applicable sections of Article 2 of Part III of the 
Municipal Code. (Supervisor Kennedy) 

(Cont'd from 12/30/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to call of the chair. 

8. File 97-92-4 . [Sale of Health Materials] Ordinance amending the San Francisco 
Administrative Code by adding Section 8.35 to authorize the Director of Public 
Health to sell health-related materials and establishing a fund for revenues derived 
from such sales. (Supervisor Alioto) 

(Transferred from City Services Committee 12/15/92 - Fiscal Impact) 
(Cont'd from 12/30/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amended on page 2 line 12 after "receipts" by deleting 

"and disbursements of the fund for the preceding year" and inserting "for 
the year, and a proposed plan for spending the funds available for the 
ensuing year, subject to the approval by the Board of Supervisors" bearing 
same title. 
Recommended as amended. 



9. File 147-92-8 . [Grant - Private Corporate Funds] Resolution authorizing the City 
Librarian to apply for equipment valued at $405,416.85 available from the Corporate 
Contributions Committee of Digital Equipment Corporation for creating the AIDS 
Library/Information Network; waiving indirect costs. (Public Library) 
(Cont'd from 12/30/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 



10. File 62-92-3 . [Coit Tower Facility Lease] Ordinance approving a five-year lease 
with Frederick Lo for management and operation of the Coit Tower Facility in San 
Francisco, California. (Recreation and Park Department) 

(Cont'd from 12/30/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

11. File 101-92-21 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $524,636, 
Department of Social Services, for permanent salaries and related mandatory fringe 
benefits and day care assistance. RO #92100 (Controller) 

(Cont'd from 12/30/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amended on line 1 (title) by replacing "$524,636" with 
"$540,419"; and on line 4 after "1992-93" by inserting "ratifying action 
previously taken". Further amended by adding the following Section 2: 
"Although the City has incurred no legal obligation under the Charter, 
the Board of Supervisors does hereby appropriate the funds necessary for 
the obligation and does hereby ratify the action previously taken." 
New Title : "Appropriating $540,419 for permanent salaries and related 
mandatory fringe benefits and day care assistance, Department of Social 
Services, for fiscal year 1992-93 ratifying action previously taken." 
Recommended as amended. 



12. File 61-92-7 . [Contract Award Extension] Resolution granting extension of time for 
awarding San Francisco Water Department Contract No. WD-2123.CDD Machine 
Shop Upgrade. (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amended on line 3 (title) after "Granting" by inserting 
"retroactively" and on line 7 after "is" by inserting "retroactively". 
New Title : "Granting, retroactively, extension of time for awarding San 
Francisco Water Department Contract No. WD-2123.CDD Machine Shop 
Upgrade." 
Recommended as amended. 



13. File 172-92-22 . [Contract Modification] Resolution authorizing the Municipal 
Railway to modify an existing contract with Breda Costruzioni Ferroviarie S.p.A. 
(Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

14. File 65-92-21 . [Sublease of Property] Ordinance authorizing and approving sublease 
of real property located at 701 Frederick Street commonly known as the former 
Boys' Gym of Polytechnic High School to the Pickle Family Circus. (Real Estate 
Department) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 



15. File 101-92-27 . [Appropriations] Resolution establishing the appropriations limit for 
Fiscal Year 1992-93 pursuant to California Constitution Article XIII B. (Controller) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

16. File 101-92-29 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $131,500, Assessor, 
for professional services (joint Viacom appraisal, Phase I). (Supervisor Shelley) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 



City Report 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415> 554-7642 



January 11, 1993 

TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: January 13, 1993 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item la - File 146-92-77 



Department: 
Item: 

Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 

Description 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 
Community Public Health Services 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, to 
apply for a grant of $650,000, which includes indirect costs in 
the amount of $65,000, based on 20% of salaries from the 
Centers for Disease Control. 

$650,000 

April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994 

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention and Training 
Center 

The proposed grant would be a fifth-year continuation grant 
from the U. S. Centers for Disease Control to the DPH to 
operate the San Francisco Sexually Transmitted Disease 
(STD) Prevention and Training Center, located at 1370 
Mission Street. The Training Center is part of a national 
network of eleven such facilities which train medical doctors 
and other health care providers in diagnosis and treatment of 
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and AIDS. The San 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 

Comments: 



Francisco Training Center serves health professionals 
throughout Region IX, which includes Arizona, California, 
Hawaii, Nevada, and six Pacific Islands. 

The DPH reports that the Training Center would provide at 
least 500 hours of training for at least 500 health 
professionals in the 1993-94 grant period. 

None 

$650,000 

1. The proposed $650,000 grant amount is $200,150 more than 
the $449,850 allocated to the City in 1992-93. The DPH reports 
that additional funds are being requested to pay for salary 
increases, computer equipment, honoraria for outside 
lecturers and for the development of instructional videotapes. 
The DPH will provide a detailed budget for the proposed 
$650,000 grant at the time the Department submits its request 
to the Board of Supervisors for acceptance and expenditure of 
these grant funds. 

2. A Disability Access Checklist has been prepared for this 
project by the DPH and is on file with the Clerk of the Board. 

3. A Summary of Grant Request will be provided by the DPH 
at the time the Department submits its request to the Board of 
Supervisors for acceptance and expenditure of the proposed 
grant. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Item lb - File 146-92-78 



Department: 
Item: 

Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 

Description: 



Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 

Comments: 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 
AIDS Office 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to 
apply for a new grant of $180,000, which includes indirect 
costs based on 10% of the total grant award, from the 
University of California at Berkeley. 

S180,000 

July 1, 1993 to December 31, 1994 

State funded University of California at Berkeley Tobacco- 
Related Disease Research Program 

Tobacco-Related Disease in HD7-Infected Homosexual Men 
Research Project 

The DPH reports that since 1983, the DPH, AIDS Office, and 
the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), through cooperative 
agreements, have conducted epidemiological, clinical and 
laboratory follow-up studies of HD7 infection and AIDS in the 
San Francisco City Clinic Cohort Study. The DPH is 
proposing to enhance these research activities with a 
separate grant from the State-funded University of California 
at Berkeley Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program to 
specifically evaluate the association between cigarette 
smoking and clinical and immunological outcomes in HIV- 
infected homosexual men. 

None 

$18,000 (based on 10% of the total grant award). This is the 
maximum amount permitted for this grant under State 
guidelines. 

1. As of the writing of this report, the DPH had not developed 
a detailed budget for the expenditure of the proposed grant 
funds. The DPH advises that budget details will be submitted 
at the time the Department requests Board of Supervisors 
approval for the acceptance and expenditure of these grant 
funds. 

2. A Disability Access Checklist has been prepared by the 
DPH for the proposed project and is on file with the Clerk of 
the Board. 



BOAIID OF SI IPERVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



3. A Summary of Grant Request will be submitted by the DPH 
at the time the Department requests Board of Supervisors 
approval for the acceptance and expenditure of the proposed 
grant. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Item lc - File 146-92-79 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 

Description: 



Budget: 



Department of Public Health 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 
Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, to 
apply for, accept and expend a grant of $175,032, which 
includes indirect costs in the amount of $6,732 based on 4 
percent of the direct costs, and which includes a required 
match in the amount of $58,344 based on 35 percent of the 
direct costs, from the McKinney Path Homeless Fund 
Federal Formula Grant for the homeless mentally ill and the 
mentally ill at risk of becoming homeless; providing for 
ratification of actions previously taken. 

$175,032 

July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 

California Department of Mental Health Services 

Outreach and case management services for the homeless 
mentally ill. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Department of 
Public Health, Division of Mental Health and Substance 
Abuse Services (DPH), to apply for, accept and expend 
retroactively a grant of $175,032 from the California 
Department of Mental Health for services to homeless 
mentally ill residents of San Francisco. 

The proposed grant funds would be used to support outreach, 
referral, case management, and mental health treatment 
services for mentally ill persons who are homeless or at risk 
of becoming homeless. Services would be provided jointly by 
the South of Market Outpatient Clinic, a City-operated mental 
health facility, which provides mental health treatment and 
support services, and Swords to Plowshares, a non-profit 
agency serving San Francisco veterans, which will provide 
mental health case management, counseling, and referral 
services for its clients. 



South of Market Outpatient Clinic 
Personnel £1E 



Program Director 
Psychiatrist 
Clinical Psychologist 
Pharmacist 



0.23 
0.33 
0.18 
0.22 



Amount 

$17,072 
30,731 
11,097 
13,658 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Registered Nurse 
Subtotal 



0.23 
1.19 



Fringe Benefits (approximately 32 percent) 
Subtotal: South of Market Outpatient Clinic 



12,804 
85,362 

26,956 



$112,318 



Swords to Plowshares - Contractual Services 



Personnel 


FTE 


Amount 




Human Services Program Director 


0.65 


$26,615 




Peer Counselor 


1.00 


29,367 




Subtotal: Swords to Plowshares 


1.65 




55.982 


Total Direct Costs 






$168,300 


Indirect Costs (4 percent) 






6.732 



Total Grant Amount: 



$175,032 



Required Match: 



No. of Persons 
Served: 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



DPH reports that the terms of the grant include a required 
match of $58,344, which is equal to one-third of the total grant 
amount of $175,032 (see Comment 1). 



The South of Market Outpatient clinic will provide case 
management and treatment services to 80 homeless mentally 
ill persons; Swords to Plowshares will conduct outreach to 
800 homeless veterans and case management services to 
approximately 20 mentally ill veterans. 

According to DPH, the grant includes indirect costs in the 
amount of $6,732, based on 4 percent of total direct costs of 
$168,300. 



1. The proposed grant includes a required match of $58,344, 
which is equal to one-third of the total grant amount of 
$175,032. DPH reports that the local match will consist of in- 
kind services provided at the South of Market Outpatient 
Clinic by a Psychiatric Social Worker who is a Civil Service 
employee. The budgeted 1992-93 salary and fringe benefit cost 
of the Psychiatric Social Worker is approximately $60,135, 
which exceeds the required match by approximately $1,791. 

2. The proposed resolution states that a local match is 
required in the amount of $58,344, based on 35 percent of total 
direct costs of $168,300. However, 35 percent of $168,300 is 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

equal to $58,905, rather than $58,344 as stated in the proposed 
resolution. 

Mr. Bill McConnell of DPH states that the local match should 
be calculated as one-third of the total grant amount of 
$175,032, which is equal to $58,344. Therefore, the title and 
body of the proposed resolution should be amended to reflect 
that the required match is calculated as one-third of the total 
grant amount of $175,032, rather than 35 percent of direct 
costs of $168,300. 

2. DPH reports that Swords to Plowshares will provide 
contractual services under a sole source contract. Mr. 
McConnell indicates that Swords to Plowshares was selected 
to provide mental health services and outreach to homeless 
veterans under the grant program when the grant funds first 
became available approximately five years ago, because 
Swords to Plowshares was already providing these types of 
services to veterans in San Francisco. 

3. DPH reports that expenses have already been incurred 
against the proposed grant funds for 1992-93. According to 
DPH, the application materials for the proposed grant were 
not issued by the State of California until September, 1992, 
with an application deadline of November 16, 1992. It was 
therefore impossible for DPH to apply for the proposed grant 
before expenses were incurred beginning July 1, 1992. 
Therefore, the proposed resolution would ratify actions 
previously taken. 

4. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request submitted by 
DPH. 

5. Disability access checklists for the South of Market 
Outpatient Clinic and Swords to Plowshares are on file with 
the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the title of the proposed resolution at lines 5-6, and 
the body of the proposed resolution at lines 16-17 by 
substituting the words, "one-third of the total grant amount 
of $175,032" for the words, "35 percent of the direct costs" 
(which are $168,300), in order to correctly state the formula 
for calculating the required match of $58,344 under the 
proposed grant. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



■c/l0/?C 



llcKinney PATH Federal Formula Grant 

thru State Department of Mental Health D ! n I s I o ^ Mental Health & Substar.ee -ruse 

crson Muriel Karp Section Planning & Evaluation 

Uept. of Mental Health, <tk,.r™ a, r t„ 

Adult Services Branch ' Contact Person Sherry barto 



9th St., Rm. 250, Sacramento, CA 9 5S1- Telephone 255-3'«37 

:oucsled S 17 5,032 Application Deadline n/16/92 



Ter -. : From 7/1/92 To 6/30/93 Notification Expected 

Health Commission Board cf Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Doard 

"_ _ T:rm Description; Request to apply fo:» accept 2nd expend 2 continuation 

<---* "«"^" *"*' gram in the amount of S 175,032 torn ihc period of 7/1/9? l0 6/30/93 

10 pmvirir. information, referral, mental health treatmeot, case Management and S£ rvic£S. 
staff training. 

C_y.HS has received McKinney PATH funds from the State Dept. of Mental Health (DliK) since 1991 to provide servic es to 
trie homeless mentally ill. This grant funds staff at the S.O.M. Outpatient Clinic (Civil Service) who -provide 
assessment, treatment, 4 case management to 80 home! ess; and at Swords to Plowshares (contract) who provide 
outreach to 200 homeless vets 4 case management to 20 mentally ill vets. This grant has already been included . 
in the CMHS budget for FY92-93 based on information from DHH. 

TTT. Outcome t/Qb'f rtivf ^: 

S.O.M. Outpatient Clinic: 1) Not more than 5% will be hospitalized. 2) 60% will move to more stable housing 
in 3 months. Swords to Plowshares: 1) Refer 200 to services. 2) Case Managed clients a) Will be linked 
to treatment b) Not more than 2 will be hospitalized c) Will obtain housing and maintain it for 6 mo. 

TV. F,ffTte nf T^purtinn nr Tr rmin ; t'lon nf TV,.<. Ejvnd_c; 

For this fiscal year, City would pay for services already deTivered and future services would be reduced and 

staff cut. _ » 

V. Financial TnfnrmE tipn: 

Col. K Col. B Col. C • Col. D Kee. Match &B3Z2ZSJ hr 

TwoYcjj-iAjo ?in Ve.»r/OHj. ?roooird Ccmji 

Grant Anoint ".A. 175,032 $175^032 $58,3^ ' 

Personnel 168,300 112,319 

Zouioment , . 



Contract Svc. 55,982 

Mat. £.- Supp. 

Facilities/Space 

Other 



Indirect Costs 6 > 732 S6,732 



'?:?_ 



VTT, ».r« nB ,.| 



F/T CSC 2.<t FTE 1.19 FTE 

?/T CSC 

Contractual 2.2 FTE 1.65 FTE 



Source(s) of non-jrant funding for salaries of CSC employees ^orkin; na.-t-tiae on this °rant; 
Funding for the South of Ma rket Clinic comes from the State Dept. of Menta~l Health, MediCal, Medicare, 
patinet fees & insurance, county general funds. ~ 



'""ill -ran: funded employees be retained after ibis -rant terminates? If so, How? 

Will depend on the availability of state funding under realignment and county general funds. 



LYIII^-Cn^rzM^l «=•"•;-«; Open Bid". Sole Source X * " 

*The CMHS contract with Swords to Plowshares has already Been renewed for FY92- 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Item Id - File 146-92-80 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH), 

AIDS Office 



Item: 

Grant Amount: 
Grant Period; 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 

Description: 



Resolution authorizing the Department of Public to apply for a 
continuation grant of $18,750,000 from the Health Resources and 
Services Administration, and waiving indirect costs. 

$18,750,000 

April 4, 1993 to April 3, 1994 

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 

The Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency 
(CARE) Title I Supplemental Grant Project 

The proposed grant funds would be used to continue to support 
the five-year Ryan White (CARE) Title I Supplemental Grant 
Project. These grant monies provide disaster relief assistance 
to localities that are disproportionately affected by the AIDS 
epidemic. 

The breakdown of these funds into a comprehensive disaster 
relief budget is the responsibility of the HIV Health Services 
Planning Council, a body whose twenty-eight members are 
appointed by the Mayor. The funding priorities as set by the 
Planning Council, which are based on guidelines established 
by HRSA, would continue to be as follows: 

Housing and residential care 30% 
Support services (i. e., psychosocial, benefits 

counseling, food, and advocacy programs) 20% 

Early HIV intervention services 15% 

AIDS/HIV Drug Program 10% 

Case management activities 10% 

Institutionally-based care (acute and long term) 10% 
Administrative costs for program coordination 

(maximum) 5% 

100% 



Required Match: None 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Momo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Indirect Costs: None - The DPH reports that Federal guidelines prohibit the 

use of these grant funds for payment of indirect costs. 
Therefore, the proposed legislation requests that indirect costs 
be waived. 

Comments: 1. As of the writing of this report, the DPH had not developed a 

detailed budget for the expenditure of the proposed grant 
funds. The DPH advises that budget details will be submitted at 
the time the Department requests Board of Supervisors 
approval for the acceptance and expenditure of these grant 
funds. 

2. A Disability Access Checklist has been prepared by the DPH 
for the proposed project and is on file with the Clerk of the 
Board. 

3. A Summary of Grant Request will be submitted by the DPH 
at the time the Department requests Board of Supervisors 
approval for the acceptance and expenditure of the proposed 
grant. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Item le - File 146-92-81 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Time Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description; 



Indirect Costs: 
Comments: 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 
Central Administration 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to 
apply for, accept and expend an allocation of up to $2,000,000, 
which includes indirect costs of 20 percent of personnel costs, 
from the State Department of Health Services, and providing 
for ratification of action previously taken. 

Up to $2,000,000 

July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Federal funds through the State Department of Health 
Services Legalized Indigent Medical Assistance (LIMA) 
Program 

Medically Indigent Adult (MIA) Program 

The proposed State allocation of LIMA funds would 
reimburse the City for the provision of Medically Indigent 
Adult Program health care services to persons who are 
eligible for aid pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 
Section 1700 and are legalized aliens under the provisions of 
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRC A). 

The State would allocate LIMA funds to reimburse the City 
for the provision of primary care services to eligible medically 
indigent legalized aliens based on quarterly cost reports to be 
submitted by DPH. Reimbursable costs include health 
services which are not covered by MediCal such as non- 
emergency services or non-pregnancy related services. The 
primary care services are largely provided through San 
Francisco General Hospital. 

20 percent of personnel costs 

1. The DPH reports that for FY 1992-93, the Department did 
not budget any monies for LIMA revenues because the State 
has informed the City that there are currently no LIMA 
funds available to reimburse counties in FY 1992-93. Mr. 
Fred Milligan of the DPH advises that this legislation is being 
submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval in the 
event that LIMA funding should become available this fiscal 
year. Mr. Milligan states that if LIMA funds are not 
allocated to the City in FY 1993-92, DPH would continue to 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

provide services to eligible legalized aliens under the MIA 
Program, which is funded by General Fund monies. 

2. The DPH advises that the proposed legislation incorrectly 
includes a request to apply for the proposed State allocation. 
According to DPH, the proposed State allocation, in contrast 
to a State grant, is a direct allocation of funds and does not 
require that the City submit an application to the State. 
Therefore, the proposed legislation should be amended to 
delete the reference to "apply for" in the title and in the body 
of this legislation. 

3. Additionally, the body and the title of the legislation 
includes language stating that the allocation includes 
indirect costs in the amount of 20 percent of personnel costs. 
According to the DPH, the actual amount of indirect costs 
included in the allocation is 10 percent of personnel costs. As 
such, the body and the title of the proposed legislation should 
be amended to provide for indirect costs of 10 percent of 
personnel costs instead of 20 percent. 

4. As noted above, the allocation has an effective date of July 

1. 1992. The DPH reports that expenditures have been 
incurred against the General Fund that could be reimbursed 
should LIMA funding become available. As such, the 
legislation provides for the ratification of action previously 
taken. 

Recommendations 1. Amend the proposed legislation to delete the reference to 
"apply for" in the title and body of the legislation. 

2. Amend the body and title of the proposed legislation to 
provide for indirect costs of 10 percent of personnel costs 
instead of 20 percent. 

3. Approve the proposed legislation as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Item If - File 146-92-82 

Department: Department of Public Health 

Item: Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 

Division of Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Forensic 
Services, to apply for, accept, and expend a grant of $30,584 
from the California Department of Mental Health for the 
Primary Prevention in the Schools project; providing for 
ratification of actions previously taken and waiving indirect 
costs. 

Grant Amount: $30,584 

Grant Period: July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 

Source of Funds: California Department of Mental Health 

Project: Primary Prevention in Schools 

Description: The Primary Prevention in Schools Project is a collaborative 

effort between the San Francisco Unified School District 
(SFUSD) and the Department of Public Health (DPH) to 
enhance self-esteem in young children who exhibit or who 
are at risk of behavioral problems. The program provides 
screening and assessment, early detection, and mental 
health intervention for children in grades K-3. 

The local Primary Prevention in Schools Project is part of the 
State of California's Primary Intervention Program (PIP), 
which will provide the proposed grant funds. The PIP 
program is intended to reduce anti-social behaviors, 
dependency on welfare programs, and serious emotional 
disorders among children at-risk, to reduce inappropriate 
classroom behaviors such as aggressiveness and 
inattentiveness, and to enhance children's attendance and 
performance at school. The California Department of Mental 
Health has recommended that the PIP program be 
implemented in every State elementary school. 

The proposed PIP grant would provide $30,584 to DPH, as 
fiscal agent for the grant funds, to extend the Primary 
Prevention in Schools Project operated by SFUSD and DPH to 
two additional elementary schools (Edison and Commodore 
Stockton). The proposed grant funds would be used to fund a 
contract with the Edgewood Children's Center, a non-profit 
agency, to provide school-based screening and counseling 
services for children at risk. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Budget: 



Contractual Services 



School-based Child Aides 


$23,710 


Fringe Benefits (14 percent) 


3,320 


Supplies 


1,000 


Travel 


1,304 


Data Collection 


1.250 



Total Grant Amount 



$30,584 



Required Match: 



Indirect Costs: 
Comments: 



DPH and SFUSD are required to provide a local match at 
least equal to the proposed grant amount of $30,584, in order 
to provide at least 50 percent of the total project budget. The 
local match can consist of in-kind services. SFUSD will 
provide in-kind services of $41,116, and DPH will provide in- 
kind clinical consultations through two district mental 
health centers at an estimated cost of $4,377, for a total local 
match of $45,493. 

According to DPH, the California Department of Public 
Health does not allow indirect costs for this grant. 

1. In early 1992, DPH and SFUSD applied to the State for 
funds available under AB 1650, a new State funding source 
for school -based mental health programs, in order to expand 
the local Primary Prevention in Schools project to two 
additional elementary schools. Under the terms of AB 1650, 
SFUSD would have been the fiscal agent for the grant funds, 
and approval of the Board of Supervisors to apply for, accept, 
and expend the grant funds would not have been required. 
Subsequently, the State Department of Public Health advised 
SFUSD and DPH that grant funds would be made available 
for the two additional elementary schools through the 
existing PIP grant program, which requires that DPH be the 
fiscal agent for the grant funds. 

Since DPH, not SFUSD, will be the fiscal agent for the grant 
funds, and since expenditures have already been incurred to 
provide primary mental health intervention services in the 
two additional elementary schools, DPH has requested that 
approval by the Board of Supervisors to apply for, accept, and 
expend the proposed grant funds apply retroactively to July 1, 
1992. Therefore, the proposed resolution would ratify actions 
previously taken. 

2. The proposed grant amount of $30,584 would fund 
contractual services provided by the Edgewood Children's 
Center to provide school-based mental health intervention 



BOARD OF SI JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

U 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



services. According to Ms. Nancy Presson of DPH, the 
Edgewood Children's Center submitted a Request for 
Proposal to provide mental health intervention services in 
San Francisco elementary schools at the inception of the State 
PIP program approximately six years ago, and, under the 
proposed grant, would provide similar services to the two 
additional elementary schools through a sole-source contract 
with DPH. 

3. Ms. Presson states that the DPH required match would 
consist of in-kind services provided by mental health 
clinicians at two district mental health centers, at an 
estimated cost of $4,377. Ms. Presson states that the cost of 
the clinicians' services for the Primary Prevention in Schools 
project are included in the DPH 1992-93 budget, and no 
additional funds would be needed to fund the DPH in-kind 
contribution for the proposed grant. 

4. Ms. Presson states that of the 78 elementary schools and 34 
pre-schools in San Francisco, only four schools (Paul Revere, 
Sanchez, Leonard Flynn, and Las Americas) are currently 
participating in the Primary Prevention in Schools project. 
The proposed grant funds would finance the addition of the 
Edison and Commodore Stockton Elementary Schools to the 
program. In addition, Ms. Presson states that SFUSD has 
separately received State grant funds in 1992-93 to finance the 
expansion of the program to the Raphael Weill Elementary 
School. 

5. A copy of the Summary of Grant Request submitted by 
DPH is attached. 

6. Disability Access Checklists for Edison and Commodore 
Stockton Elementary Schools are on file with the Board of 
Supervisors. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Crantnr State Dept. of Mental Health 




Conuc: Pcsor. Deborah Johnson 




Address ioOO Ninth Street 




Sacramento, CA 95814 




A-nnnf R C C lie S t : d S 36,911 

t,-- ,- Fro- 7/1/92 To 6/30/93 
Health Commission Board of 


Su 



Division Me ntal tilth. Subs. Abuse & Fo rens 
ScciIod Child, Adolescent. Family 
Comic; Person Nancy Presson, >1?H 
Telephone 415-255-3632 

Application Deadline Mor-ph 15. 1 CQ 2 

N/A 
Notification Expected '__ 



Full Doard 



T. Ttrm Pf^.-ri-itinn; P.equesi to (apply for) (accept 2nd expand) a (new) (continuation) (allooauor.) (augrr.er.U'Jon to a) 
pm. .^^- -<~> g _ :il Ln ^ amounl f s 30,584 from the period of 7/1/92 to 6/30/93 

to provide, mental health primary prevention services. 

Primary Intervention in Schools Project is a school-based, early detection and mental he alt 
intervention program focused primarily on K-3 students in public schools. The grant wou ld 
fund this program for the Edison and Commodore Stockton Schools. Services would be provi de' 
through a contract with Edgewood Children's Center, a non-profit organization, with in-k ind 
services provided by SFUSD and DPH's CMHS. This is a three-year grant. 

JTT. Outcome t/Qbirctivf *; 

1 ) All children enrolled in Edison and Commodore Stockton Schools in grades K-3 will be 
screened for the program. 2) Approximately 80 children will be seen in once-per-week 
sessions by counselors for each of two school semesters. ■ 

TV, E££££lS ni " ^'Huctinr, nr T^r-min? tinn of TKf<;» ^ U n(jr; 

Two elementary schools would not receive these prevention services. 



'inancial TnfnrrnBtir 



Gr2nt Amount 


i *o Vem A«o 




C" 


VsmASHf 




? ersoanel 








ZouiDment 








'Contract Svc. 








Mat. £: Supn. 








r 2cilities/Snace 








Other 








Indirect Costs 








VT. Fiji; Prr,r-c 








tw.aduUtW,) 


N/A 


N/A 


VTT. P-rcnno-l 

F/T CSC 










P/T CSC 










Con :ractu.2l 









Year 1 

Col. C • Col. D Kec. Mztcn JBBZSXSJ ^ v 

Proposed C c»at5 

30,584 ' 







30.584 



N/A .. N/A 







2.50 



Soarce(s) of noD-^ran: f-jecin» for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on 
Not applicable 



>> ill jrzst funded employees be retained zfler ".his Q r:;::: terminates? If so, How? 
If SFUSD and DMS F have funds, the costs of this program will be picked up by both 
departments -jointly. . 



-vttt r , 



Si Open Bid Sole So-. 



The services will be provided through a CMHS contract with Edgewood Children's Center, 
which responded to a State RFP and was awarded the grant. CMHS is the administrator per 
State requirements. 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Item lg - File 146-92-83 



Department: 
Item: 

Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 

Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Community Substance Abuse Services (CSAS) 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to 
accept and expend a grant subvention up to the amount of 
$49,988, from the State of California, Department of Alcohol 
and Drug Programs, and waiving indirect costs. 

Up to $49,988 

July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 

The development of a five-year master plan for substance 
abuse services in San Francisco. 

The proposed grant would fund the third-year of the 
development of a five-year master plan to reduce alcohol and 
drug abuse in San Francisco. The DPH proposes to use these 
grant funds to (1) develop recommendations and findings for 
the plan, based on a needs assessment conducted last year, 
(2) write the master plan, and (3) procure public review and 
approval of the master plan and develop a strategy for its 
implementation. 

The proposed grant is being made pursuant to Senate Bill 
2599, which was enacted by the State Legislature in 
September of 1998. SB 2599 provides for the development of 
five-year State and County master plans in order to maximize 
resources for drug and alcohol abuse programs and identify 
funding priorities for the State. The DPH reports that the 
addition of Division 10.6 to the State Health and Safety Code 
provides the State with the authority to provide allocations to 
counties which develop County master plans. The DPH also 
reports that a percentage of future State Alcohol and Drug 
Program funding will be set aside to fund priority alcohol and 
drug services only to those counties with State-approved five- 
year County master plans. 

The DPH will continue to contract, on a sole source basis, 
with the Friendship House Association of American Indians, 
Inc., a non-profit agency, for assistance in writing and 
procuring public approval for the master plan. Friendship 
House was selected because of its knowledge and training 
expertise in the area of alcohol abuse. 



BOARD OF SI JPERVLSOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Budget: 



Contractual Services - Friendship House Association of 

American Indians. Inc. 

Personnel: 

Master Plan Coordinator $38,312 



Operating Expenses: 
Clerical Services 
Graphics 
Travel 
Meetings 

Administrative Overhead 
Total 



S5,000 

1,000 

178 

100 

5.398 

$49,988 



Required Match: None 



Indirect Costs: None - The State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 

does not allow the use of grant funds for indirect costs. 
Therefore, the proposed legislation requests that indirect 
costs be waived. 

Comments: 1. As noted above, the proposed grant period began on July 1, 

1992. Therefore, the proposed legislation should be amended 
to authorize the DPH to accept and expend the funds 
retroactively. The DPH reports that Friendship House has 
continued to provide services for the development of the five- 
year master plan and the proposed grant funds would be 
used to reimburse Friendship House for their services. 

2. The DPH advises that the State required that the City 
submit an application only for the first-year funding of this 
project. Therefore, the DPH is not requesting authorization 
from the Board of Supervisors to apply for the proposed grant. 

3. The proposed grant award of $49,988 is $4,165 or 
approximately 7.7 percent less than the FY 1991-92 grant 
award of $54,153. 

4. The DPH has prepared a summary of the proposed grant, 
which is attached. 

5. A Disability Access Checklist has been prepared by the 
DPH for the proposed project and is on file with the Clerk of 
the Board. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



It I Til No. 



Health Commission - Summary of Granl Request 



Rev. 



Grantor: Stale of California, Depanment of 

Alcohol and Drug Programs 

Contact Person: Merle Yamasaki 

Address: 1 700 "K" Street 

Sacramento CA 95814 

Amount Requested: S 49,988 

Term: From 7/1/92 To 6/30/93 

Health Commission 



Division: Mental Health, Substance Abuse and 

Forensic Services 
Section: Community Substance Abuse Services 
Contact Person: Wayne Clark, Ph.D. 
Telephone: 255-3500 
Application Deadline: N/A 
Notification Expected: N/A 

Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Board 



L Item Description; 



IT. Summary: 



Request to accept and expend a subvention from the State of California, 
Depanment of Alcohol and Drug Programs in the amount of 549,988 for the 
period of July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 to create a comprehensive 5-year master 
plan for substance abuse treatment services in San Francisco. 



The State of California Dept. of Alcohol and Drug Programs subvened funds directly to the Department of 
Public Health (please refer to attached "Notice of Allocation" dated February 28, 1992) to develop and 
implement a five-year master plan for substance abuse services in San Francisco. These planning services 
for this third year include developing recommendations and findings based on last year's needs 
assessment, writing the master plan, procuring public review and approval of the plan and developing a 
plan for implementation. 

III. Outcomes/Objectives: 

The outcome objective of year three of this planning project is to write the five-year master plan for 
substance abuse treatment services for the City and County of San Francisco and procure public approval. 

IV. Effects of Reduction or Termination of These Funds: 

This special subvention may terminate at the end of this fiscal year. The contract staff hired for this project 
are aware of the funding and time limitation for this project and are prepared to seek other employment 
following project termination. 



y_ 



Financial Information: 



Col. B 



Co l. C 



Col. D 



Req. Match Approved bv 





Two Years Ago 


Past Yr./Orig. 


Proposed 


Change 






Grant Amount 


$99,975 


$54,153 


$49,988 


($4,165) 


N/A 


N/A 


Personnel 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 






Equipment 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 






Contract Svc. 


$99,975 


$54,153 


$49,988 


($4,165) 






Mat. & Supp. 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 






Facilities/Space 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 






Other 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 






Indirect Costs 


* 


* 


* 


* 







VI. Data Processing 

(costs included above) 

VII. Personnel 



±1 



-0- 



-a 



F/T CSC 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 






P/T CSC 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 






Contractual 


2 


1 


1 


-0- 







*The State of California doesn't allow indirect costs on us subventions. However 10% of all subvened 

funds is taken by the City and County of San Francisco for program administration. 

Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 

Not applicable. 

Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so. Mow? 

No; grant-funded contractor employees have been told thai the project and their employment is temporary. 

* VII I . Contractual Services: Open Hid * Sole Source__^__(.f <»lc souice. aiuch Keenest for lixcmpiron form) 

*Note: This is a subvention for existing services; the Commission has approved their continuation 

through the current non-profit contractor. 



19 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Item lh- File 192-92-7 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Parking and Traffic to 
apply for, accept and expend State Department of 
Transportation grant funds for participation in the 1993 
California Department of Transportation's Fuel Efficient 
Traffic Signal Management (FETSIM) Program, for the 
Mission District Signal System. 

Up to $80,000 

January 1, 1993 - December 31, 1993 

State of California, Department of Transportation's 1993 Fuel 
Efficient Traffic Signal Management (FETSIM) Program 

This project would evaluate and retime traffic signals for 
improved traffic flow with the use of an advanced computer 
program. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Director of 
Parking and Traffic to apply for, accept, and expend State 
funds for participation in the 1993 California Department of 
Transportation's Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal Management 
(FETSIM) Program. 

The FETSIM Program provides full funding to conduct 
evaluations of and adjustments to traffic signals in order to 
improve traffic flow, reduce air pollutant emissions and 
improve energy efficiency. The Department of Parking and 
Traffic (DPT) proposes to evaluate and optimize signal timing 
and coordination for the traffic signal network in the Mission 
District, consisting of 80 locations in the area bounded on the 
north by 14th Street, on the west by Dolores Street, on the south 
by Army Street and on the east by Potrero Avenue. DPT reports 
that since the last timing study of this area was conducted in 
1984, the traffic patterns and flow have changed significantly 
and an evaluation is needed to alter and improve the signal 
timing. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Grant Budget: 



Personnel Costs 



Proposed Amount 



$46,534 
20.010 
66,544 

9,982 

3.474 

$80,000 



Class 5228 Assistant Traffic Engineer, Step III 

$21.95 per hour x 320 hours $ 7,024 

Class 5229 Associate Traffic Engineer, Step IV 

$27.35 per hour x 160 hours 4,376 

Class 5233 Principal Traffic Engineer, Step I 

$36.66 per hour x 40 hours 1,466 

Class 5382 Student Engineering Trainee III 

$16.30 per hour x 2,000 hours 32,600 

Class 7345 Electrician 

$26.69 per hour x 40 hours 1.068 

Subtotal 
Mandatory Fringe Benefits @ 43 percent of total salaries ($46,534 x .43) 
Total Salaries and Benefits 

Indirect Costs @ 15 percent of Personnel Costs ($66,544 x .15) 

Remaining Balance for Contingency 

Total Grant Amount 

Required Match: None 

Indirect Costs: $9,982 (15 percent of $66,544 in Personnel Costs) 

Comments: 1. The proposed FETSIM project would be undertaken by 

existing staff in the DPT's Engineering Division*. Mr. Mark 
Rand of the Engineering Division advises that this would 
require some work reassignments but that most of such 
reassignments could be performed by existing staff trainees. 
Under these circumstances the proposed grant would offset 
current and future budgeted costs for DPT personnel. 

* DPT's Engineering Division was formerly the Bureau of 
Traffic Engineering under the Department of Public Works 
(DPW), but has been transferred as part of the establishment of 
the Department of Parking and Traffic under Proposition D, 
approved by the voters on November 8, 1988. 

2. In August of 1989, the City initially received $76,873 in State 
funds to evaluate and retime traffic signals for improved traffic 
flow in the South of Market area. At that time the City was 
required to match State funds on a one to three basis. 
Therefore, the City match was $25,624 and the total project cost 
was $102,497 ($76,873 + $25,624). The work was completed in 
October of 1990. No local match, however, is required for the 
proposed grant which would be used again to evaluate and 
retime traffic signals. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Item li - File 100-92-1.5 

Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



District Attorney 

Family Support Bureau (FSB) 

Release of reserved funds for the District Attorney's Family 
Support Bureau (FSB) in the amount of $37,500 for various 
data processing equipment and programs for the creation of 
a Child Support Court which would be added to the Superior 
Court. 

$37,500 

Previously Appropriated General Fund and Federal revenue 
funds (Title IV-D) 

In approving the FY 1992-93 budget for the District Attorney's 
Family Support Bureau (FSB) the Board of Supervisors 
reserved $37,500 pending approval by the Electronic 
Information Processing Steering Committee (EIPSC) for a 
Local Area Network (LAN) System. The proposed release of 
reserved funds would permit the establishment of such a 
system. 

The Family Support Bureau (FSB) is required to administer 
the Child Support Program for the City and County of San 
Francisco. This program must accomplish certain Federal 
performance standards that are closely tied to incentive 
funding (Federal reimbursements at 11 percent of total child 
support collections) which generates significant revenues to 
the General Fund. The Federal standards include a hearing 
process requirement for enforcement activities which allows 
contested cases to move through the judicial system in an 
expedited manner. The proposed Child Support Court, 
which to date has been partially implemented, will permit 
San Francisco to continue to be in compliance with Federal 
standards because enforcement activities will receive more 
time and attention. 

The Child Support Court sets up a hearing process under 
Superior Court supervision with a Hearing Commissioner 
who: 

• takes testimony; 

• establishes a record, evaluates evidence, and makes 
recommendation or decisions; 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



• accepts stipulated (both parties assent) agreements of 
parentage and child support amounts; and 

• enters default (generally, failure of defendant to appear or 
plead) orders. 

Family Support Bureau (FSB) reports that while the Superior 
Court may rehear a case, it is not anticipated this would be a 
frequent occurrence. 

Once the subject expedited hearing process is instituted, it 
will become an integral part of FSB's Child Support Program 
operations and will be eligible for Federal subvention at the 
applicable Federal share of 66 percent for administrative and 
overhead costs. The Child Support Court should generate 
additional revenues based on realized incentive payments 
from the Federal governments (11 percent of all collections 
resulting from court decisions). 

The $37,500 reserve for various data processing equipment 
and programs would address three data processing needs as 
follows: (1) ability to calculate child support based on Federal 
and State law and guidelines; (2) capability to produce a 
sufficient volume of legal documents to match any court 
calendar; and (3) communication and interface with the 
County Clerk data processing system. 

For courtroom support there will be a series of personal 
computers with a Lan ("host") computer that will serve seven 
other computers. This configuration will generate legal 
documents, calculate child support obligations, and provide 
communication to the DA's FSB Computer Assisted Support 
Enforcement System (CASES) main automated data 
resource. The County Clerk portion of the proposed system 
will be connected to the main County Clerk data system so 
that the FSB's CASES is contained in the master data base. 



Project Budget Description 

"Host" Server Personal Computer (PC) 
Mainframe connection components 
Connecting PCs (7 x $1,714.28) 
Network Interface Boards 
Laser Jet Printer (2 x $2,500) 
Tape Backup 

Uninterruptible Power Source (UPS) 
Modems 

Transmissions costs to hook into CASES 
Total 



Amount 

$ 6,000 
3,000 
12,000 
1,500 
5,000 
2,100 
400 
3,000 
4.500 

$37,500 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Ik 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Comments: 1. Mr. Paul Owsley of the Electronic Information Processing 

Steering Committee (EIPSC) advises that the subject 
acquisition of computer equipment falls under its Personal 
Computer (PC) Rule of 20, which exempts small annual 
departmental acquisition of computer systems and 
computers from formal review by EIPSC. 

2. Ms. Jackie Fong of the Purchasing Department advises 
that the costs budgeted for the proposed computer equipment 
requested by the District Attorney's (DA) Family Support 
Bureau (FSB) are reasonable and correct. Mr. Ken Tashian 
of the Controller's Information Services Division (ISD) 
confirms that transmission costs to connect the proposed 
computer system into FSB's CASES main file system would 
cost approximately $4,500 as indicated above in the Project 
Budget. 

3. Mr. Joseph Matranga of the DA FSB reports that after the 
Child Support Court's initial full year of operation, it can be 
expected that revenues from applicable Federal subventions 
and incentives should exceed the General Fund cost to 
operate this hearing process system. Mr. Matranga 
estimates the initial year cost and subsequent year savings to 
the General Fund (revenues exceeding expenditures) for the 
new Child Support Court are as follows: 

Initial Subsequent 

Fiscal Year Fiscal Years 

Anticipated Expenditures $ 280,608 $568,255 

Projected Revenues 185.201 610.227 
Net Cost/(Savings) to 

General Fund $ 95,407 $(41,972) 

Therefore, after the first year, it is estimated that annual 
revenues would exceed annual expenditures by $41,972. 

4. The Budget Analyst concurs that in subsequent years 
additional revenues should be generated as the collections of 
support payments increase in response to the work 
accomplished by the new Child Support Court and resultant 
incentive revenues from the Federal government (11 percent 
of total collections) are realized. 

5. Last year, the Budget Analyst surveyed FY 1990-91 
financial data on budgeted revenues and expenditures for the 
Family Support Bureaus (FSB) in the 12 most populated 
California counties. That data indicated that 4 counties 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



(Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Mateo) had 
revenues from their FSB operations which exceeded the cost 
of their program operations. During that fiscal year, San 
Francisco had $7,300,086 in revenues compared with 
$8,108,833 in expenditures with a resulting net cost of 
$808,747 to the General Fund (revenues represented 90.03 
percent of expenditures). 

6. The DA FSB FY 1992-93 budget has projected $10,166,746 in 
anticipated revenues which is $169,946 less or 98.36 percent of 
$10,336,692 in budgeted expenditures. Between FY 1990-91 
and 1992-93, the net General Fund cost of the Family Support 
Bureau has decreased $638,801 from $808,747 to $169,946 and 
the percent of revenues to expenditures has increased 8.33 
percent from 90.03 percent to 98.36 percent. 

7. The proposed release of funds for the purchase of $37,500 
in computer equipment to facilitate the operation of the new 
Child Support Court should further assist the DA FSB to 
increase revenues from Federal incentive payments based on 
the total of child support contributions collected. 



Recommendation: Release the reserve. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1992 

Item 2 - File 203-92-2 



Department: 



Item: 



Subject Property: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Real Estate 

Ordinance authorizing and directing the execution of a 
quitclaim deed by the City and County of San Francisco to the 
San Francisco Community College District, for the City 
College of San Francisco site located at Ocean Avenue and 
Phelan Avenue, and adopting findings pursuant to City 
Planning Code Section 101.1 (the San Francisco Community 
College District operates the City College of San Francisco). 

The property is designated as a portion of Assessor's Block 
3179, Lot 10, also known as the City College of San Francisco 
site (see attached). 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the Director of 
Property to execute a quitclaim deed by which the City would 
release all rights, title and interest in the City College of San 
Francisco site to the San Francisco Community College 
District. The Real Estate Department reports that the City 
College site was purchased by the City over a period from 1854 
to 1865. This property was transferred to the San Francisco 
Unified School District by the City, to be used as a public 
school site between 1934 and 1946. The San Francisco 
Community College District acquired jurisdiction over this 
site pursuant to Ordinance No. 314-69, which was approved 
by the Board of Supervisors on October 25, 1969. The authority 
to manage and control the City College of San Francisco site 
is vested in the Governing Board of the San Francisco 
Community College District. 

The Department of City Planning has reported that the 
execution of the quitclaim deed is in conformity with the 
Master Plan and consistent with the Eight Priority Policies of 
Planning Code Section 101.1. 

1. According to Mr. Jesse Smith of the City Attorney's Office, 
the City still holds legal title to the City College of San 
Francisco site merely as a passive trustee on behalf of the 
State without authority to manage or control this property. As 
such, according to Mr. Smith, any interest the City has in 
this site is of no value to the City. 

2. Mr. Harry Quinn of the Real Estate Department reports 
that the San Francisco Community College District is 
proposing to build a library on the City College of San 
Francisco site. According to Mr. Quinn, the San Francisco 
Community College District must have legal title to the City 



BOARD OF SUPERVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1992 

College of San Francisco site in order to acquire the 
necessary State financing for the proposed library. The 
execution of the quitclaim deed by the City and County of San 
Francisco to the San Francisco Community College District 
would result in the district being the legal title holder of the 
City College of San Francisco site. 

Recommendation: Based on the City Attorney's Office advice that any interest 
the City has by virtue of having legal title to the City College of 
San Francisco site is of no value to the City, approve the 
proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Ttem 3 - File 185-92-5 

Department Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families 

(MOCYF) 

Item: Resolution approving the Fiscal Year 1993-94 Children's 

Services Plan for the San Francisco Children's Fund in 
accordance with Charter Section 6.415. 

Description: Proposition J, commonly known as the "Children's 

Amendment", that was approved by the electorate in 
November, 1991 amended Section 6.415 of the Charter to 
require the establishment of the San Francisco Children's 
Fund. The San Francisco Children's Fund augments the 
existing level of expenditures for services and programs for 
children. The Children's Amendment requires that the City 
maintain a level of expenditure for children's services which 
is equal to or greater than the level of expenditure in fiscal 
year 1990-91 or 1991-92, whichever is greater, and sets aside a 
certain percentage of property tax revenues to fund additional 
services above and beyond the level of services funded prior to 
adoption of the Children's Amendment. 

The Children's Fund is funded by an annual set-aside of ad 
valorem (property) tax revenues in the amount of $0.0125 (one 
and one quarter cents) per hundred dollars of assessed 
valuation for Fiscal Year 1992-93 and $0,025 (two and one half 
cents) per hundred dollars of assessed valuation for Fiscal 
Year 1993-94 and the eight subsequent fiscal years. The 
Children's Amendment will expire after a total of ten years. 

In 1992, the Controller certified that the City's appropriations 
for children's services prior to adoption of the Children's 
Amendment totaled approximately $50 million. This baseline 
amount of approximately $50 million, represents the required 
minimum expenditure by the City for children's services in 
each of the ten fiscal years. Each succeeding year the 
baseline amount will be adjusted annually by the percentage 
change in aggregate City appropriations since the base year. 

The Children's Fund for Fiscal Year 1992-93 is 
approximately $5.7 million. Therefore, the total funding for 
children's services in Fiscal Year 1992-93 is approximately 
$55.7 million (approximately $50 million baseline plus $5.7 
million in the Children's Fund). The Controller's Office 
estimates that the ad valorem tax revenue for the Fiscal Year 
1993-94 Children's Fund will be approximately $13.2 million. 



BOARD OF SI JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



The Children's Amendment requires that for the first four 
fiscal years in which monies are set aside, the City must 
allocate at least 25 percent of the Children's Fund to each of 
three areas of "eligible services": 1) childcare, 2) health and 
social services, and 3) job readiness, training, and 
placement. The balance of not more than 25 percent of the 
Fund may be used only for libraries, recreation, delinquency 
prevention, and education programs for children. Beginning 
with the fifth fiscal year (1996-97), the Board of Supervisors 
may modify or eliminate these minimum funding 
requirements. The Children's Amendment does not specify 
how administrative costs of these programs are to be paid. 

The Children's Amendment also requires that the Mayor 
submit to the Board of Supervisors, by December of each year, 
a "Children's Services Plan" for the next fiscal year to specify 
the goals and objectives to be achieved through expenditures 
from the Children's Fund, to outline proposals for 
expenditures from the Children's Fund and to recommend 
City departments to administer the funded programs. 

Beginning in fiscal year 1993-94, the Children's Amendment 
requires a public planning process, in which public hearings 
are to be held by the Public Health, Juvenile Probation, Social 
Services, Recreation and Parks, and Public Library 
Commissions prior to submission of the Mayor's Children's 
Services Plan to the Board of Supervisors. According to the 
proposed plan, 19 such public hearings were held in 
November and December, 1992. 



Proposed Budget 



The funding allocations for Fiscal Year 1992-93 expenditures 
of the Children's Fund and the proposed Children's Services 
Plan for 1993-94 reflecting estimated program expenditures 
from the Children's Fund are as follows: 



BOARD OF S IJPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



31 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



SERVICE CATEGORIES 



Funding Proposed 

Allocations Plan for 

for FY 1992-93 FY 1993-94 



Childcare 

Vouchers to Parents 

Provider Center Subsidies 

SFUSD Children's Centers 

After School Care Programs 

Respite Care 

Day Care Technical Assistance 

Extended Hours 

S.F.Unified Departmental Services 

Special Needs 

Total-Childcare 

Health and Social Services 

Public Health Nurse - AFDC Intake 

Health Outreach Worker 

Neighborhood Preventive Health Team 

Healthy Start Matching Funds 

Mental Health Centers Outreach 

GAIN Teen Program 

Prevention Services 

Homeless Families 

Mental Health to Child Care 

Child Abuse Prevention 

Parent Education 

S.F.Unified Departmental Services 

Special Needs 

Total-Health and Social Services 



$454,764 


$889,764 


332,100 


562,100 


80,000 


80,000 


246,409 


436,409 


75,000 


175,000 


37,500 


37,500 


- 


135,000 


- 


385,398 


58,829 


268.829 


$1,284,602 


$2,970,000 


$22,000 


$22,000 


22,000 


22,000 


368,945 


368,945 


100,000 


100,000 


149,040 


149,040 


225,000 


225,000 


150,000 


375,000 


56,250 


131,250 


147,290 


147,290 


29,817 


94,817 


- 


100,000 


- 


1,062,800 


46,858 


171.858 


$1,317,200 


$2,970,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



32 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Job Reading. Training, and Placement 

Dropout Prevention 

Job Readiness 

Foster Children Vocational Counseling 

Mayor's Youth Employment & Educ. 

Workreation Expansion 

Early Exposure - ages 12-14 

Job Bulletin 

College Preparatory 

Youth Entrepreneur Projects 

Job Placement 

S.F.Unified Departmental Services 

Special Needs 

Total-Job Readiness, Training, and Placement 



Funding 


Proposed 


Allocations 


Plan for 


for FY 1992-93 


FY 1993-94 


$244,822 


$244,822 


469,183 


554,183 


28,000 


28,000 


300,000 


535,000 


64,590 


64,590 


35,510 


145,510 


- 


85,000 


- 


100,000 


- 


85,000 


— 


185,000 


- 


664,285 


143.610 


278.610 


$1,285,715 


$2,970,000 



library. Recreation. Delinquency Prevention. Education 

Extended Library Children's Hours 
Off-site Library Services 
Age Appropriate Reading Materials 
Rec/Park Youth Services Planner 
Teen Multi-Service Centers 
Tutorials/Peer Support 
Alternatives to Detention 
Outdoor Recreation 
Cultural Enrichment 
S.F.Unified Departmental Services 
Special Needs 

Total Library, Recr., Delinquency Prev., Educ. 

Total Service Categories 



$321,543 


$321,543 


75,000 


75,000 


25,000 


25,000 


55,878 


55,878 


281,254 


731,254 


263,658 


373,658 


130,000 


280,000 


- 


110,000 


— 


300,000 


- 


450,766 


116.901 


246.901 


$1,269,234 


$2,970,000 


$5,156,751 


$11,880,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Funding Proposed 

Allocations Plan for 

for FY 1992-93 FY 1993-94 



ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 

Personnel (salaries and fringe benefits) 
Technical Assistance 
Fiscal/Accounting Services 
Rent, supplies and equipment 
Miscellaneous 

Total Administrative Costs 

UNALLOCATED 

TOTAL CHILDREN'S PLAN 



$265,541 


$1,084,037 


29,084 


— 


36,000 


— 


77,576 


228,963 


39.200 


7.000 


$447,401 


$1,320,000 


$95,848 




$5,700,000 


$13,200,000 



Comments: 



1. According to the proposed Children's Services Plan, some 
of the proposed expenditures from the Children's Fund can 
be used to leverage additional funding from Federal, State 
and other funding sources. The programs listed in the 
Children's Services Plan which reflect opportunities to 
receive additional Federal, State or other funding are as 
follows: 



Program 



Recommended 
Administrator 



SFUSD Children's Centers SFUSD 

Nurse-AFDC Intake DSS 

Health Outreach Worker SFUSD 

Neigh. Prev. Health Team DPH 

Healthy Start SFUSD 

GAIN Teen Program DSS 

Foster Children Voc. Coun. DSS 
Total 



Proposed 

Allocation 

Children's 

Fund 

$80,000 

22,000 

22,000 

368,945 

100,000 

225,000 

28.000 

$845,945 



Source of 

Additional 

Funding 

Prop. 98 

CHDP 

CHDP 

CHDP 

SB 620 

Other Grants 

Title IV 

FILS 



Amount of 

Additional 

Funding 

$1,500,000 

22,000 

24,000 

50,000 

300,000 

150,000 

225,000 

28.000 

$2,299,000 



SFUSD = San Francisco Unified School District 

DSS = Department of Social Services 

DPH = Department of Public Health 

CHDP = State Child Health and Disabilities Program 

FILS = Federal Independent Living Skills Program 

SB 620 = California Healthy Start Program 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



34 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Recommendation; 



2. In November 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
resolution urging the Mayor to utilize the Fiscal Year 1992-93 
Children's Services Plan as the foundation for the 1993-94 
plan in order to maintain continuity in the provision of 
services. This resolution also provided that services 
contracted from community based providers would be 
provided for an 18 month period from January, 1993 through 
June, 1994 with the first nine months (January through 
September 1993) funded from the 1992-93 Children's Fund 
appropriations and the last nine months (October, 1993 
through June, 1994) funded from the 1993-94 Children's Fund 
appropriation. 

3. The proposed Children's Services Plan for 1993-94 is a 
guideline for implementation of the Children's amendment 
and does not itself appropriate funds. Appropriation of funds 
will be accomplished in the regular budget approval process 
for the City's 1993-94 budget. 

Approval of the Fiscal Year 1992-93 Children's Services Plan 
is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Item 4 -File 127-92-2.1 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
December 16, 1992. 

1. Ordinance amending Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code by 
amending Section 807 thereof, providing an exemption from the payment of the 
Stadium Operator Admission Tax, by extending for one year, through December 
31, 1993, the exemption from the payment Admission Taxes on tickets sold at 
$17.99 or less. 

2. Until December 31, 1992, Section 807 of Article II, Part II of the San 
Francisco Municipal Code provided for an exemption from the $0.50 Stadium 
Operator Admission Tax for tickets priced at $12.99 or less for the first 42,500 paid 
admissions to any single event. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 807 
to extend the exemption from the $0.50 tax for tickets but at the increased price 
limit of $17.99 or less (a $5.00 increase in the prices of exempt tickets) for the first 
42,500 paid admissions at each event to be effective for one year, until December 
31, 1993. 

3. The Stadium Operator Admission Tax was established in 1971 to partially 
finance the expansion of Candlestick Park. The Giants report that a) the stadium 
expansion of 1970 was exclusively for the accommodation of football; b) between 
1970 and 1979, attendance in excess of pre-expansion capacity (approximately 
42,500) occurred on only 15 occasions totaling only 118,526 tickets with total 
additional ticket sales from the expansion resulting in approximately $511,600 of 
additional revenue; c) during this same time period (1970-79), the Giants 
generated approximately $2,064,046 in Stadium Operator Admission Tax 
revenues. Since 1980, the Giants have exceeded pre-expansion capacity on 60 dates 
(10 of these dates were in the 1989 season which had total attendance of 2,370,126 
including 310,297 for three playoff games and two World Series games). 

4. Prior to 1977, exemptions from this Stadium Operator Tax had a minor 
impact on revenues and were primarily limited to tickets priced $2.01 or less. 
From 1977 through 1987, the ticket prices to be exempt rose several times. During 
1988 and 1989, the exemption was on tickets of $12.99 or less for the first 42,500 
paid admissions at each event. Tickets sold in excess of 42,500 at each event were 
subject to the $0.50 tax. As previously noted, the proposed ordinance would extend 
the exemption from the $0.50 tax for tickets at the increased price limit of $17.99 or 
less for the first 42,500 paid admissions until December 31, 1993. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

5. Actual revenues to the Candlestick Park Fund from the $0.50 Stadium Operatoi 
Admission Tax from FY 1986-87 through FY 1991-92 have been as follows: 

1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93**** 

49ers $306,400 $349,089 $341,000 $326,000 $326,000 $523,000 

Giants 87,636* 11,094** 176,259*** 22,262** 6,761** 740,000 
Monsters of Rock 

Concert 32.500 



Total $394,036 $392,683 $517,259 $348,262 $332,761 $1,263,000 

* Reflects Admission Tax payments on playoff games which had ticket prices 
exceeding $9.99. 

** Reflects Admission Tax payments for those tickets sold for all seats in excess of 
42,500 at each game. 

*** Reflects Admission Tax payments for those tickets sold for all seats in excess 
of 42,500 at each game and for playoff and World Series games which had ticket 
prices exceeding $12.99. 

**** Budgeted Amounts 

6. Ticket prices for the Giants in 1993 are $12.25 to $17.50 for a lower box, 
$11.25 to $12.25 for an upper box, $10.25 for a lower reserved seat, $6.25 for an 
upper reserved seat and $5.25 for a pavilion seat. The 1993 price for a general 
admission seats has not yet been determined (the 1992 price for general admission 
seats was $2.75). 

7. The proposed exemption from the $0.50 Stadium Operator Admission Tax 
would apply to tickets priced at $17.99 or less rather than for tickets priced at 
$12.99 or less as the 1992 exemption provided. According to Mr. Phil Arnold of the 
Recreation and Park Department, the proposed increase of ticket price Stadium 
Operator Admission Tax exemption from $12.99 to $17.99 is because the Giants 
intend to increase ticket prices for the 1993 baseball season. As of the writing of 
this report, the proposed ticket price increases have not been disclosed. However, 
because the proposed exemption is for tickets sold at $17.99, it is reasonable to 
expect that the Giants' increased ticket prices for the 1993 season will not exceed 
$17.99. Thus, all the tickets sold by the Giants, (excluding those tickets sold in 
excess of 42,500 per game, and excluding playoff and World Series tickets) which 
have a price of less than $17.99, are exempt from the Stadium Operator 
Admission Tax. Ticket prices for the 49ers are $35.75 for all seats in 1992. In 
accordance with a 1985 agreement between the City and the 49ers, luxury boxes 
are exempt from the Stadium Operator Admission Tax. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



8. The projected amount of annual revenue in 1993 from the Stadium 
Operator Admission Tax, a) based on an exemption for all tickets sold at $2.01 or 
less (which would result if this proposed ordinance were not approved), and b) 
based on an exemption for all tickets sold at $17.99 or less (which would result if 
this proposed ordinance were approved), and c) based on budgeted and projected 
1993 attendance figures, would be as follows: 

Projected 1993 Stadium Operator Admission Tax Revenues 







If exemption of tax 








is on all tickets 








of$17.99orlessfor 






If exemption of tax 


the first 42,500 


Estimated 




is on all tickets 


paid admissions 


Additional Revenues 




of $2.01 or less 


at each event 


to the City 




(If proposed 


(If proposed 


(If proposed 




legislation 


legislation 


legislation 




is not approved) 


is approved) 


is not approved) 


49ers 


$326,000 


$326,000 





Giants 


875.000 


6.761 


S868.239 



Total 



$1,201,000 



$332,761 



$868,239 



Approval of the proposed legislation would result in an estimated loss of 
revenues to the City of $868,239. 

Comment 

In May of 1992, the Board of Supervisors granted an exemption to the 
Stadium Operator Tax on all tickets of $12.99 or less. When the Finance 
Committee passed this legislation out to the full Board of Supervisors, the 
Committee stated that this would be the last time that the exemption would be 
granted. Based on that stated intent, the Mayor's Office, the Recreation and Park 
Department and the Controller's Office included $700,000 in additional Stadium 
Operator Admission Tax revenue in the Recreation and Park Department's FY 
1992-93 budget. 1 Thus, if the proposed exemption is granted, the Candlestick Park 
Fund would realize a shortfall of $700,000 in budgeted revenue. In FY 1992-93 the 
Candlestick Park Fund had a surplus of approximately $3.5 million which was 
budgeted as a transfer to the General Fund. In order to operate Candlestick Park 
at its current level, this $3.5 million transfer to the General Fund would have to be 
reduced by $700,000 in FY 1992-93. Therefore, if the proposed exemption is 
approved, an amount of $700,000 less would be transferred from the Candlestick 
Park Fund to the General Fund. It should be noted that the proposed concessions 



1 The Department budgeted $700,000 in Stadium Operator Admission Tax revenue instead of 
$868,239 which is the projected additional annual revenue from the Giants paying the Stadium 
Operator Admission Tax. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

to the Giants of approximately $3.1 million annually ($1.5 million in FY 1992-93) 
will also reduce the Candlestick Park Fund transfer to the General Fund by 
approximately $1.5 million, thereby resulting in total reduced transfers to the 
General Fund of $2.2 million ($1.5 million plus $700,000) in 1992-93, if the $3.1 
million of concessions are granted to the Giants and if this proposed exemption of 
the Stadium Operator Admission tax is approved. 

Recommendation 

In May of 1992 the Finance Committee expressed its intent to not approve 
an exemption to the Stadium Operator Admission Tax in 1993 and the Recreation 
and Park Department and the Controller's Office included $700,000 in revenues 
from the Stadium Operator Admission Tax to reflect that intent. 

Approval of the proposed exemption is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. As stated above, such approval would result in an estimated annual 
loss to the City's General Fund of $868,239. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Ttem 5 - File 188-92-1 

Note: This item was continued from the Finance Committee meeting of November 
IS, 1992. 

1. This is a hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts with 
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation 
Districts (M/TID)for the purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy hydroelectric power. 
When this item was heard by the Finance Committee, on October 21, 1992, specific 
questions were asked by the Committee to the Budget Analyst, the Hetch Hetchy 
General Manager and the City Attorney. This report addresses those questions. 

2. Chronology of Contract Negotiations - Attachment 1 is a copy of the City 
Attorney's memorandum concerning the history of negotiations between the City 
and County of San Francisco, the Pacific Gas & Electric Company and the 
Modesto/Turlock Irrigation Districts. 

3. The Results of Contract Negotiations with the Districts - Attachment 2 
to this report provides a memorandum from Hetch Hetchy and the City Attorney 
entitled "Benefits and Obligations of the Power Contracts with The Modesto 
Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation District and Pacific Gas & Electric Company" 
in response to this inquiry from the Finance Comrnittee. 

4. The City's Options for Re-negotiation of the Contracts - Attachment 3 
is a memorandum from the General Manager of Hetch Hetchy explaining the City's 
options regarding re-negotiation of the terms and conditions of the PG&E and 
M/TCD contracts. 

5. Reconciliation of Financial Information with San Francisco Bav 
Guardian newspaper article - The Budget Analyst was directed to analyze data 
published in a newspaper article printed in the SF Bay Guardian regarding 
historical trends in equity transfers of surplus funds from Hetch Hetchy to the 
General Fund and the costs and benefits of transactions between Hetch Hetchy, 
PG&E and M/TED over a sixteen-month period beginning in March 1991 and ending 
June 1992. This review is discussed below: 

Equity Transfers to the General Fund - The graph below provides a 
history of transfers to the General Fund for the ten-year period beginning with 
fiscal year 1983-84 and ending with the current, 1992-93 fiscal year. The chart 
below shows that the graph printed in the Bay Guardian article was substantially 
correct. However, the scale of the Bay Guardian chart served to exaggerate the 
relative differences between annual transfer amounts by depicting the transfers 
over a truncated range of $10 million to $50 million rather than the full range of 
zero to $50 million. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

Budget Analyst 
40 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Equity Transfers lo the General Fund by Fiscal Year (thousands) 



$50,000 
$45,000 
$40,000 
$35,000 
$30,000 
$25,000 
$20,000 
$15,000 
$10,000 
$5,000 




Charter Section 6.407 specifies the manner in which surplus funds may be 
transferred from utility funds (i.e. Hetch Hetchy and the Water Department) to the 
General Fund. Essentially, up to 25% of a preceding fiscal year's surplus may be 
transferred to the General Fund after accounting for operations, maintenance and 
repair and needed capital acquisitions and improvements. Therefore, equity 
transfers to the General Fund do not entirely result from prior year sales of Hetch 
Hetchy's hydroelectric power, but also depend on expenditures for operating and 
capital costs, other revenue such as the sale of water, and surplus balances from 
past years that had not been transferred to the General Fund. 

A further complication that must be taken into consideration when reviewing 
Hetch Hetchy transfers to the General Fund is of course the effects of recent 
drought years on the system's water supply and resulting net revenue from the 
generation of hydroelectric power. The chart on the following page shows the 
relationships between these factors. 

The chart on the next page compares equity transfers from Hetch Hetchy to 
the General Fund on a fiscal year basis with prior year (PY) values for net power 
revenue (total hydroelectric power sold less the costs of PG&E services such as 
transmission expense and capacity reserve costs and the purchase of power 
purchased from PG&E in order to meet contractual obligations). 

Also shown on the chart are values for Prior Year Natural Flow, a measure of 
total inflows, in acre-feet, for the Tuolumne River system. This provides a relative 
comparison, on a year-to-year basis, of water supply available to Hetch Hetchy for 
reservoir storage and hydroelectric power generation. 



board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Comparison of Net Power Revenue. Equity Transfers to 
General Fund and Water Flow 



Net Power 

Revenue and 

Transfers 



$60,000 



$50,000 -- 



$40,000 



Water Flow 
-T- 6,000 



' ' PY Net Power Revenue 

(thousands) 



isg^igl Equity Transfers (thousa-cs) 



■ PY Natural Row (1 , COO Acre 

feet) 




-- 5,000 



4,000 



-- 3,000 



2,000 



■ - 1,000 



Source data for the two charts shown above and on the preceding page are 
displayed below. 





PYNet 








Power 


Equity 


PY Natural 




Revenue 


Transfers 


Flow (1 ,000 


Fiscal Yr. 


(thousands) 


(thousands) 


Acre-feet) 


1983-84 


$60,350 


$33,295 


4,245 


1984-85 


$59,552 


$31,000 


3,243 


1985-86 


$47,252 


$50,000 


855 


1986-87 


$60,069 


$46,000 


3,286 


1987-88 


$36,740 


$40,000 


833 


1988-89 


$28,665 


$25,000 


808 


1989-90 


$27,156 


$25,000 


1,302 


1990-91 


$34,967 


$15,000 


864 


1991-92 


$18,220 


$11,000 


1,035 


1992-93 


$33,592 


$22,600 


851 


Board of Supervisors 






Budget Analyst 






hi 







Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

6. Costs and Benefits from the Purchase of Supplemental Power from 
PG&E to meet M/TID demand - The Finance Committee has directed the Budget 
Analyst to reconcile the differences between data reported by the Bay Guardian and 
Hetch Hetchy. The Bay Guardian reported that Hetch Hetchy lost approximately 
$10.7 million over a sixteen-month period between March 1991 and June 1992. 
After conferring with Bay Guardian staff, the Budget Analyst was informed that 
their estimate of PG&E bills for services and the purchase of supplemental power 
was based on projections, of computed average payments by M/TID for such 
purchased power. The Bay Guardian staff then added the cost of capacity reserve 
payments to arrive at the $10.7 million loss figure. These calculations are 
summarized below: 

Bav Guardian Calculations for Period of March 91 to June 92 
(in millions) 

Calculated cost of Purchased Power from PG&E $ (17.3) 

Projected M/TID Payments for Purchased Power 12.9 

"Sales Loss" $ (4.4) 

Mandatory Capacity Reserve Charge (6.3) 

Total Loss $ (10.7) 



In contrast to the Bay Guardian calculations shown above, Hetch Hetchy 
reports that during the same sixteen-month period, the City paid PG&E less than 
$6.2 million for "supplemental power" to meet the Districts' demands and charged 
the M/TID over $6.6 million for the same supplemental power, thereby realizing a 
net benefit of over $400,000 instead of the Bay Guardian's calculated "Sales Loss" of 
$4.4 million. Hetch Hetchy also reports that Capacity Reserve payments to PG&E 
over that same period amounted to $5.98 million, but that this expenditure was 
necessary not only to guarantee supplemental power but to provide "firm capacity" 
for all power generated by Hetch Hetchy, thereby assuring total revenues from 
M/TID of $27.6 million including not only the sale of power purchased from PG&E 
but also power generated by Hetch Hetchy itself. 

According to Hetch Hetchy, if capacity reserves were not guaranteed by 
PG&E, the City would not be able to sell power at firm power rates and therefore 
would not have realized total revenues of $27.6 million over this period. Hetch 
Hetchy further adds that the contract with PG&E provides "capacity reserve 
credits" which reduced supplemental power purchase costs by $7.3 million over the 
period analyzed. 

7. Power Market Analysis - The Finance Committee also directed the Budget 
Analyst to review any alternative market data or analyses for the services provided 
by PG&E to the City and long-term power sales agreements comparable to the 
City's contracts with M/TID. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

43 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Hetch Hetchy reports that no alternatives exist to the transmission, firming 
and other services provided by PG&E to the City. Therefore, they are unable to 
provide meaningful data to compare with the PG&E agreement. 

Hetch Hetchy consultants, Stone & Webster, Inc. have provided a review of 
seven other long term power sales agreements in comparison to the City contracts 
with M/TID. The consultants note many factors that make comparisons difficult, 
such as the buyer/seller relationships, the years the agreements were initiated, the 
terms of the contracts, energy requirements and delivery contingencies. Such 
factors can cause variations in power prices of between 5% and 25% according to the 
consultants. 

Hetch Hetchy's consultants conclude that, while acknowledging these 
differences, the City's current price for Class 3 power sold to M/TID of 40 mills per 
kilowatt hour ($.04) is at the low end of the market, which ranges from 40 to 50 
mills per kilowatt hour. The Budget Analyst notes that this difference between the 
M/TID contract and other long term markets remains substantially unchanged from 
prior reports by the Budget Analyst, based on surveys performed by Hetch Hetchy's 
consultants in 1984 and 1988. In these prior reports, the Budget Analyst concluded 
that if the M/TID agreements reflected other market data provided by Hetch 
Hetchy's consultants, then the City would realize substantially greater revenues. 

Despite the fact that greater revenues could be achieved if the M/TID 
agreements were comparable to other long term sales contracts, according to Hetch 
Hetchy and the City Attorney, no opportunities exist to modify the existing M/TED 
agreements through re-negotiation under the contract terms and conditions. 

As explained in Attachment 2 to this report, Hetch Hetchy believes that other 
contract features provide favorable financial results to the City. These include the 
fact that the Districts must pay for all firm power up to the project dependable 
capacity of 260 megawatts whether they use such power or not (i.e. "take or pay"), 
that the City can automatically increase power and energy for its municipal needs 
thereby reducing power supplied to the Districts, and that the City's rates for Class 
3 power sold to the Districts escalate based on PG&E's average revenue for energy 
and not City costs for hydroelectric generation. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

Budget Analyst 
44 



Page I or 7 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



LOUISE H. RENNE 

CITY ATTORNEY 

CITY HALL 



WATER SECTION 
Thomas M . Bei 1 i. ner 
Joshua D. Milstein 
John S . Roddy 
Christiane Hayashi Tri) . 
Deputy Cil.y A I I ui neys 
(415) 554-4295 



MEM O R A N D U M 



DATE 
TO: 



THROUGH: 



FROM : 



RE: 



October 30, 1992 

SUPERVISOR JIM GONZALES 
Chair, Finance Committee 
Board of Supervisory 

ANSON B. MORAN 

General Manager 1 

Hetch Hetchy Wa^&c— dhd Power 

THOMAS M. BERLINER j M? 
Deputy City Attorney 

History of Negotiations With Pacific Gas S. Electric 
Company and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation 
Districts Concerning Power Sales Contracts 
(Our Ref. No. P0019/84) 




Pursuant to your request attached is a chronology of events 
leading up to the current power sales contracts with PG&E and the 
Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts (sometimes referred to 
as MID, TID or collectively as "Districts"). 



T . M . B 



Enclosure 



w/ enc . 
Sup. Hallinan 
Sup. Migden 
Budget Analyst 
T. La key 



1470P/3 



45 



Page ^ of 3 

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RELATING TO POWER CONTRACTS WJ I'M THE MODESTO 
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, TNULOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT ANN PACIFIC f^AS 
AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 



DATES COMMENTS 

1945 City signs com! racl with PG&E for supplements J 

power and support services. (Contract expires 
1987, per amendments.) 

1973 City si 'ins powei sales contracts wii ; : Disti Lets. 

Sold totaJ en! put o£ Hetch Hetchy Project as 

"f i nn" power . 

Nov. 1973 OPEC oil crisis escalated market rates. Ovei 
next several years City derived substantial 
revenues from PG&E "assigned customers." 

1970 City unsuccessfully Litigates with Districts to 

raise i a t e s f o r powe i . 

1979 Airlines unsuccessfully sue City re power of PUC 

t o set rates. 

July, 1980 Hetch Hetchy solicits 15 public agencies for 
interest in purchase of Hetch Hetchy power. 

1981 Hetch Hetchy consultant, Auslam & Associates, 

recommended Districts, Western Area Power 
Administration (WAPA) as potential customers. 

1981-1982l / PG&E informs City that next PG&E contract would 

be on same terms as current contract, but without 
assigned customers. 

1981-1982 City negotiates with Districts on basis of PG&E 
representations . 

1983 PG&E changes contract parameters and informs City 

that if City negotiates firm power sales 
contracts, City must pay for firming services. 
(See 1981-82.) PG&E elects to contract directly 
with Districts for support services. 

PG&E discovers failure to escalate rate base from 
1973. Cost to PG&E of approximately $'1 
mi llion/year . 



1/ In late 1981 or early 1982, PG&E orally informed Dean 
Coffey - exact date unknown. 



46 



Pa?e 3 of j 



DATES _ . COMM E N T S 



1903 Districts discuss purchase of firm power from 

City. Districts will purchase additional powei 
e 1 sewhere . 

Late L 9 83 Districts contend Hetch lletchy not firm power so 
would pay us "dump powei " (5-7 mi ] Is) . Mefcch 
Hetcby discusses firming with PG&E. City 
negotiates with Districts concerning firm power 
rates. 

1984 Auslam and Associates' report recommends sale 

price of between 30-40 miils/kwh based upon 
amounts of power available from Pacific Northwest 
and Sou thwes t . 

Aug. 1984 MID prepared to sign contract with City; breaks 
away from Til). Proposed contract at •' mil Is. 

Sept. 1904 Rep. Tony Coelho's introduces legislation for Til) 
to compel City power sales at "cost." 
Legislation passes House of Representatives. 
Sen. Wilson objects on procedural grounds. City 
negotiates with Districts, meets with Rep. 
Coelho. Coelho outlines terms for agreement 
including: 30-year contract, price of 23 mills, 
District priority to power, right to use excess 
Hetcli Hetchy transmission and capacity, and other 
conditions . 

Sept. 1984 City and Districts sign "principles." 

May, 1985 Board of Supervisors approves 2-1/2 year "Interim 
Agreements" with Districts. City to sell bulk of 
power above City's municipal needs to Districts 
for 30 years, at 36.25 mills (price includes 
capacity charge), plus escalation, and other 
"Coelho" terms . 

June, 1985 Prior contracts with Districts expire. Replaced 
by Interim Agreement. 

July, 1985 City and Districts sign "Amplified Principles." 

Dec. 1987 PG&E 1945 contract, as amended, expires. 

Jan. 1988 "Extension Agreement" with Districts becomes 

effective. Present agreement with PG&E becomes 
ef f ect ive . 

Feb. 1980 Board of Supervisors hearing on powei" contracts. 

April, 1988 Long Term Agreements with Districts become 
ef feet i ve . 

14 7 0P/4 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



rt L. L dL lIl 

Page 1 



MIL 

)f~5 



LOLH3E H =?ENNE 

CITY ATTORNEY 

CITY "ALL 



WATER SECTION 

Thomas M. Berliner 

Joshua D. Milstein 

John S. Roddy 

Christiane Hayashi Trippe 

Deputy City Attorneys 



(415) 554-4295 
ME M ORANDUM 



DATE: 



November 5, 1992 



TO: 



FROM: 



RE: 



THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ 
Chair, Finance Committee 
Board of Supervisors 



'(351 



ANSON B. MORAN 

General ManageA " J 

Hetch Hetchy Warej^and Power 

THOMAS M. BERLINER 

Deputy City Attorney 

Benefits and Obligations of the Power Contracts With 
the Modesto Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation 
District and Pacific Gas & Electric Company 
(Our Ref. No. P0019/84) 



Pursuant to your request, the following summarizes the 
benefits and obligations which resulted generally from the power 
sales contracts with the Modesto Irrigation District and Turlock 
Irrigation District, and the support services contract with 
Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 



You will recal 
Districts and the PG 
debate both before t 
of Supervisors. The 
contracts - includin 
analysis by PUC staf 
consultants, includi 
analyze the contract 
condition. Based up 
the contracts provid 
revenues over prior 



1 that both the City contracts with the 

&E contract received extensive analysis and 

he Public Utilities Commission and the Board 

re were numerous hearings concerning both 

g one which Mayor Agnos attended, extensive 

f, the Budget Analyst, and outside 

ng consultants retained specifically to 

s in their post-negotiated, pre-acceptance 

on this analysis. City leaders concluded that 

ed the City with a substantial increase in 

contracts, met the City's needs for disposal 



48 



THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ Page 1 cf T> 

Chair, Finance Committee 2 November 5, 1992 

Board of Supervisors 1508P 

of its Hetch Hetchy power, and protected the City from system 
failures and water supply shortages due to drought. 

In reviewing the benefits and obligations, one must keep in 
mind that each party to a contract will have its own vision of 
the benefits and obligations which accrued. Furthermore, during 
the life of a contract, depending upon events, what may have 
started out to be a benefit or obligation in general, may not be 
perceived as such at all times. 

BENEFIT S AND OB LI GATIONS OF PO WER SALES CONT RACTS TO THE 
MODES TO IRRIGATION AND TURL OCK IRRIGATIO N DISTRICT . 

The agreements between the City and Districts are in two 
parts. The first phase of the agreement lasted 2-1/2 years. It 
was known as the "Interim" agreement. The second phase of the 
agreement is the "long-term" agreement and covers the remaining 
27-1/2 years of the contract. The terms and conditions of both 
the Interim and long-term agreements were dictated in large part 
by the principles agreed to in 1984. These principles were the 
result of an intensive negotiation during the month of September, 
1904 following the introduction by Rep. Tony Coehlo of 
legislation which would have prevented the City from selling its 
Hetch Hetchy power for a profit. The basic principles and the 
subsequent amplification to these principles formed the basis for 
the long term agreement which is now in effect. The major 
provisions are set forth below. 

BENEFITS . 

1. During the first 2-1/2 years of the agreement (Interim 
Agreement) all sales by the City to the Districts were deemed 
"firm.'' This maximized revenues from City power. 

2. During the first 2-1/2 years of the agreement (Interim 
Agreement) the Districts were obligated to pay for half of the 
charges from PG&E for firming services. This was a "pass 
through" of PG&E charges. 

3. The Districts will pay a portion of the firming costs 
($700,000 per year) to "firm" their Class 1 power entitlements 
under the Raker Act. Prior to this contract, their Class 1 power 
entitlements were on an "as available" basis. 

4. The Districts must pay for firm power up to 260 MW, 
whether they use it or not (i.e. "take or pay"). That is, the 
Districts are obligated to pay the City during the life of the 
contract for the amount of power that they have committed to 



49 



Atta c hment 2 

THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ Page ~T~ o f 6 

Chair, Finance Committee 3 November 5, 1992 

Board of Supervisors 15 08P 



purchase- Should the Districts develop other resources which 
could provide them power cheaper than available from this 
contract, they will nevertheless have to pay the City for the 
Cull amount of their committment. 

5. The price for Class 3 (commercial) power was initially 
established on the basis of a market rate and will escalate 
pursuant to increases in PG&E rates. 

5.1 Rate changes will be based on a 5-year trend 

analysis of PG&E rates, thereby smoothing sharp 
increases or decreases in rates. 

5. The Districts must purchase firm power at a 65% 
"capacity factor." This capacity factor recognizes the City's 
need to balance its primary water supply obligations with its 
firm power committments. 

7. If the project dependable capacity (PDC) of the Hetch 
Hetchy project decreases, the City will reduce its obligation to 
the Districts. If PDC is decreased due to an "uncontrollable 
force," the City is obligated to meet the initial PDC for only 90 
days . 

8. If the City's municipal load increases, it will reduce 
its firm capacity committments to the Districts by an equivalent 
amount . 

9. Half of all excess energy generated by the Hetch Hetchy 
project may be served to the City's airport tenant customers. In 
the event excess energy is generated above that required by the 
Districts, the City may serve this energy to Norris Industries 
and PG&E assigned customers. 

10. The rate for non-firm energy is the lower of the firm 
energy rate for Class 3 purchases or the rate available to the 
City under long term alternative non-firm sales agreements. The 
initial alternative rate is established at the energy cost 
adjustment clause (ECAC) or fuel cost component of an applicable 
PG&E rate approved by the California Public Utilities 
Commission. The ECAC rate is a very competitive rate at this 
time . 

11. In the event of "uncontrollable forces" the City's 
performance under the contract will be excused under specified 
circumstances. 



50 



THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ ?Sge h of 6 

Chair, Finance Committee 4 November S, 1992 

Board of Supervisors 1508P 



12. The Districts and City agree not to initiate, cause, 
support or engage in any attempt to frustrate the terms and 
conditions of this agreement or the integrity of the Raker Act. 

13. if third parties cause impacts to either the contract 
or the Raker Act which diminish the benefits of the agreement, 
the parties agree to amend the agreement so as to realize the 
mutual benefits anticipated by the agreement. 

OBL IGATIONS . 

1. The City is committed to selling power to the Districts 
tor a total of 30 years. The contract expires June, 2015. 

2. Since the Districts are paying for firming services, 
the City must supply the Districts with Class 1 power even if it 
is not otherwise available from Hetch Hetchy. 

3. The rate for Class 3 power will escalate based on a 
five-year trend analysis of PG&E rates. This will cause rate 
changes to lag somewhat, however it will have the impact of 
smoothing rates rather than causing sharp increases or 
decreases . 

4. If excess capacity exists above the Hetch Hetchy 
project dependable capacity (PDC) of 260 MW, the Districts have 
the right to make use of it, but must pay the City for any 
additional costs incurred to serve airport tenants. Costs for 
other customers are not recoverable. 

5. If the City increases the PDC of the Hetch Hetchy 
project, the Districts are entitled to purchase the increase in 
firm capacity. 

6. The Districts have a right of first refusal to at least 
one-half of the available non-firm energy generated by the Hetch 
Hetchy project. 

7. The Districts may use excess transmission capacity of 
the Hetch Hetchy lines to the extent such usage does not 
interfere with the City's use of the transmission facilities. 

BENE FITS A ND OBLIGATIONS FROM THE 
SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT WITH PG &E . 

BENEFITS . 

1. The contract with PG&E is for the same length of time 
as the contracts with the Districts. 



51 



Attachmen t 2 
THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ Page~3~oT ~E~ 

chair. Finance Committee 5 November 5, 1992 

Board cf Supervisors 1508P 

2. PG&E must provide the City with the firming services 
City requests for City's municipal loads and firm sales to 
Dist r icts . 

3. Services from PG&E are on "if and as needed basis." 
There is no charge for services not used. 

4. PG&E will provide supplemental power when Hetch Hetchy 
generation is not sufficient to meet its firm committments or is 
needed for maintenance or emergency outages. 

5. PG&E provides capacity reserve services for Hetch 
Hetchy for use during emergency and maintenance outages. 

6. PG&E will provide up to 59.8 MW of capacity credits 
against purchases of supplemental power. The City/PG&E contract 
is the. only PG&E contract which contains this provision. 

7. In the event the City needs to purchase supplemental 
capacity in excess of the available capacity credit for District 
obligations, it will not be charged a premium for purchases 
during peak periods nor will it be required to pay for this 
capacity in months when it is not used. That is, there is no 
"rachet." (The "rachet" does apply to purchases for airport 
tenants and Norris Industries.) 

8. The City obtained firm committments for the 
transmission of Hetch Hetchy power to the City for municipal 
needs and the right to purchase up to 200 MW of transmission in 
order to meet future increases in the City's municipal load. 

9. Disagreements over rates may be litigated before the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) which limits rates to 
"cost of service," which includes the authorized rate of return. 

10. If more economical energy is available from other 
sources, the City may purchase it without obligation or penalty 
to PG&E. 

11. If more economical power or services are available 
from other sources, the City may purchase them subject to 
notifying PG&E, and PG&E may request contract renegotiation as a 
result of City's purchase decisions. 

12. The City will be entitled to sell excess energy to 
PG&E's' large industrial customers, i.e. "assigned customers." 
The Ci'ty/PG&E contract is the only PG&E contract which contains 
this provision. 



THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ Attachrn 

Chair, Finance Committee 6 November 5, 199§ a P e ~^ 

Board of Supervisors 1508P 



OB LIGATION S. 

1. The City must purchase capacity reserves from PG&E 
since at present PG&E is the only provider. 

2. In the event City needs to purchase supplemental 
capacity for airport tenants or Norris Industries, a "rachet" 
will apply which will raise the quantity of capacity which the 
City must purchase for these customers to the highest demand in 
the current month or the preceeding 11 months, which ever is 
greater . 

3. The only available transmission and distribution path 
for the delivery of Hetch Hetchy power to the City for its 
municipal needs is through PG&E. The City must purchase and pay 
for these services. 

4. Rates under the contract are subject to periodic 
renegotiation. (This issue is placed in the "obligation- 
category because it is expected that under normal circumstances 
rates will increase, not decrease.) 



A.B.M./T.M.B 






53 



Page 1 of 3 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



LOUI5E H -f-til 

CITY A"MC~-.?Y 

CITY HA'.L 



WATER SECTION 

Thomas M. Berliner 

Joshua D . Milstei.n 

John S. Roddy 

Christiane Hsyashi Trippe 

Deputy City Attorneys 



DATE 
TO: 



FROM : 



RE: 



(415) 5 5 4-4295 

MEMORANDU M 

Novembe: 16. 1992 

THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ 
Chair, Finance Committee 
Board o£ Supervisors 

ANSON B . MORAN f VoS 
General Manager \_y 
Hetch Hetchy Water and Power 
THOMAS M. BERLINER -Tttg> 
Deputy City Attorney 

"Leverage" in the Power Contracts with the Modesto 
Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation District and 
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 
(Our Ref. No. P0019/84) 



You have requested some guidance as to where the City might 
obtain leverage in the power contracts with the Modesto and 
Turlock Irrigation Districts ("Districts") and Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company ("PG&E"). The concept of "leverage" is one which 
varies depending upon the party or situation. Within the context 
of the Finance Committee's inquiry, "leverage" is the opportunity 
for the City to achieve a "better deal" or an advantage in its 
negotiations with the parties to the power contracts. 

The City experienced the downside of "leverage" during the 
negotiations of the power contracts through the legislation 
introduced by Rep. Tony Coelho on behalf of the Districts, which 
would hove precluded the City from selling power above cost. PG&E 
also had leverage since it was (and is) the sole provider of 
i ranswission FinO capaci'.y »epft' •■■?:< in thi.~ sorvii.** area. The Ci'v 
• i I. so hod r.om;; leverage. While the Districts eliminated the City's 
ability to sell ho some other ent'ty. the City still had some 
ability to determine the operational aspects of the sale and 



5b 



Page 2 of 3 



Honorable Jim Gonzalez 
Chair, Finance Co mm i t 1 e e 



Nov erabe r 1 ' 
Doc. 157 fiP 



1 Q o 



delivery of power. with PG&E, the City was a purchase: of a not 
insignificant amount c£ services. Further, Mayor Feinstein played 
an active role in final face to face negotiations with PG&E which 
definitely had a positive impact on the final contract. 

It is possible that the City could obtain leverage in its 
dealings with either the Districts or PG&E external to the 
provisions of the contracts. That would be a process of some 
strategizing and careful consideration by the City. However, it 
is my understanding that your inquiry is related to leverage which 
the City might obtain from within the contracts themselves. 
Assuming this to be the case, we have analyzed the contracts to 
determine where the City might have leverage. 

Leverage is created at any time that (1) both parties to the 
contract want to change terms or conditions in the contract; (2) a 
term or condition within the contract has (a) become 
"unreasonable" as a matter of law or (b) is subject to 
renegotiation, and which could be decided by the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission or arbitration if one or the other party is 
again "unreasonable"; or (3) one party has gained an advantage 
over the other party as to some aspect of the contract such as 
through the creation of options or alternatives which allow it to 
obtain a "better deal" elsewhere. 

EGJs£_QON.IEACj: 

Before beginning a negotiation with PG&E on the basis of the 
three areas identified in the preceeding paragraph, an assessment 
must be made concerning the likely outcome of a negotiation. 
While the City may want a rate from PG&E to be decreased, 
circumstances may be such that an increase is justified. Further, 
an appeal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may not only 
confirm a rate increase, but may open the door to an even greater 
increase than originally proposed. Of course, the opposite result 
is also possible, either in achieving a decreased rate or reducing 
a rate increase. 

For example, a recently proposed decision by the California 
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) may provide leverage in future 
negotiations with PG&E. The CPUC will be considering a proposal 
to lower PG&E' s rate of return. If this reduction is based on 
changes in PG&E ' s costs, or is reflected in rates charged to the 
City, this may provide the type of leverage identified in item 2 
above. If the City is able to show that a rate which is subject 
to FERC jurisdiction should be lowered as a result of a final CPUC 
decision, this would benefit the City by either providing a basis 



55 



Page 3 c: ; 



onorable Jim Gonzalez 
hair. Finance Commi r tGfi 



November 16 
Doc. 1576P 



1992 



for reducing a current rate or a proposed rate increase. Hetch 
Hetchy ••■ill be following the CPUC closely on this issue. 

The City has already explored ways to obtain leverage 
through alternatives ider.-ifiea in item 3, above. Hetch Hetchy 
studied the power ccncrac" wi th PG&E to determine where it would 
gain the greatest immediate financial benefit for the least amount 
cf money. Hetch Hetchy concluded that it should try to purchase 
.•ion-firm energy from available power pools. As a result, the 
ooard of Supervisors approved a contract with the western Systems 
Power Pool, a brokerage consortium, which allows the City to 
purchase economy energy on. the "spot market" at rates below those 
charged by PG&E. While this arrangement has not yet translated 
into "leverage" with PG&E, it is a first step and others will 
follow. 

Among the other areas where alternatives may be developed 
are : 

Additional power purchases from other sources on either a 
firm, non-firm or option basis. 

Transmission service from non-PG&E sources to the extent 
transmission might be available. 

Capacity reserve services from some other source, 
including the possibility of the City supplying its own 
capacity reserves. 

MODESTO AND TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICTS CONTRACTS . 

The City's contracts with MID and TID do not contain the 
same obvious opportunities for leverage, because they do not 
contain specific reopeners for rate negotiations or service 
issues. Therefore, the parties do not have established 
opportunities to renegotiate provisions of the contract. 

Hetch Hetchy has sought to maximize revenues under the 
contracts through scheduling flexibility associated with the 
delivery of power to the Districts. Hetch Hetchy is currently 
scrutinizing all scheduling factors governed by the contracts as 
well as any flexibility it has discovered as a a result of day l.u 
day operations. Any advantage which may be realized will be 
pursued . 



A . D . M . / T . M . 3 



Sup . Ha 1 li nan 
Sup. Migden 
Budget Analyst 
Ted I.akey 



56 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Ttem 6 -File 161-92-5.1 

Note: This item was continued at the December 16, 1992, Finance Committee 
meeting. 



Department: 
Item: 

Description: 



Comment: 



San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) 

Resolution approving an amendment to the Redevelopment 
Agency's FY 1992-93 budget. 

The proposed resolution would allocate $30,000 from a 
recent bond transaction fee paid to the SFRA to fund a 
personal services contract with a consultant to provide 
bilingual technical services to nonprofit organizations and 
24th Street merchants as part of the 24th Street 
Revitalization Project. 

Mr. Bob Gamble of the SFRA reports that the SFRA recently 
received $81,000 from the Webster Tower and Terrace bond 
transaction. $51,000 represents fees past due and $30,000 
represents new fees. The proposed resolution would 
approve an amendment to the SFRA's budget to appropriate 
$30,000 of these revenues. The remaining $51,000 has not yet 
been targeted for a specific purpose. 

The SFRA advises that the 24th Street Revitalization 
Committee selected Ms. Rosa Rivera, Chair of the 24th 
Street Physical Improvement and Preservation 
Subcommittee, as the consultant to provide bilingual 
technical services to nonprofit organizations and 24th Street 
merchants as part of the 24th Street Revitalization Project. 
The SFRA advises that Ms. Rivera would be supervised by 
Ricardo Noguera, Planning Coordinator of Mission 
Economic Development Association. Monthly invoices to the 
SFRA would require Ms. Rivera to itemize all community 
meetings, merchant consultations and loan packages. The 
proposed contract of $30,000 would be based on an hourly 
rate of $24.72 and would expire after seven months. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



b oard qf SUEEKHS QB S 

BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Item 7 - File 127-92-10 

Note: This item was continued at the December 30, 1992 Finance Committee 
meeting. 

Item: Ordinance amending Part III, Municipal Code, by adding 

Section 75.1 to require persons filing a statement of 
Fictitious business name pursuant to California Business 
and Professions Code Section 17900 et. seq. to provide proof 
of compliance, including payment of all appropriate license 
fees, with all applicable sections of Article II of Part III of 
the Municipal Code. 



Description: 



Under the Administrative Code, the City imposes three 
types of business registration requirements. All businesses 
in San Francisco are required to obtain a business tax 
registration certificate from the Tax Collector, in order for 
the City to enforce collection of business taxes (businesses 
with annual gross receipts under $15,000 are not required 
to pay a business tax registration fee, but still must obtain 
the certificate). In addition, some, but not all, businesses 
are required to obtain regulatory permits of various kinds, 
such as Health Department permits for restaurants or Fire 
Department permits for gas stations, which are issued by 
the individual departments. Finally, some, but not all, 
businesses are required to obtain business licenses , 
including, for example, licenses for laundries, sightseeing 
operations, theatres, automotive repairs shops, and others. 

In addition, the Recorder administers the filing and 
issuance of fictitious business name statements, which are 
required of individuals who adopt a name different than 
their own as a name for their business. 

The proposed ordinance would amend the Administrative 
Code to require that individuals who file a statement of 
fictitious business name with the Recorder must provide 
proof of payment of all appropriate business license fees, or 
a waiver of any license requirements, from the Tax 
Collector before the fictitious business name statement will 
be issued. 

The proposed ordinance would not require persons filing a 
fictitious business name statement to present proof that 
they have obtained the required business tax registration 
certificate. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



1. The Recorder and the Tax Collector have previously 
reported that the intent of the proposed ordinance is not to 
require persons filing fictitious business name (FBN) 
statements to present proof of compliance with the City's 
business license requirements pursuant to Article 2 of the 
Administrative Code, as stated in the proposed ordinance. 

Rather, the intent of the legislation is to enhance 
compliance with the City's business tax, by requiring all 
businesses filing a FBN statement to present evidence that 
they have obtained the business tax registration certificate , 
pursuant to Article 12-B of the Administrative Code. 

2. This item was continued from the Finance Committee 
meeting of December 30, 1992 to allow for preparation of an 
Amendment of the Whole which would reflect that any 
person filing a FBN statement would be required to present 
a business tax registration certificate. 

3. As of the writing of this report, the Amendment of the 
Whole had not been submitted to the Clerk of the Board for 
review by the Budget Analyst. 

4. Mr. Richard Sullivan of the Tax Collector's Office states 
that he and Mr. Bruce Jamison, the City and County 
Recorder, wish to continue the proposed ordinance to the 
call of the Chair pending the submission of an Amendment 
of the Whole from the City Attorney. 

Continue the proposed ordinance to the call of the Chair 
pending the submission of an Amendment of the Whole by 
the City Attorney's Office. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13. 1993 

Item 8 - File 97-92-4 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
December 30, 1992. 

1. The proposed ordinance would amend the San Francisco Administrative 
Code by adding Section 8.35 to authorize the Director of Public Health to sell 
health-related materials and establishing a fund for revenues derived from such 
sales. 

2. Under the proposed ordinance, the Director of Public Health would 
establish the sales price for these materials which the Department of Public 
Health would offer for sale to the public. The proposed ordinance specifies that 
the Director may consider the ability of the recipient to pay and the goal of 
promoting public health. 

3. The proposed ordinance would also establish a special fund, the 
Department of Public Health Publication Fund. All monies received from the sale 
of any and all materials would be deposited to this new special fund. Monies in 
this special fund would be used specifically for the Department of Public Health 
purposes. The balance remaining in the fund at the close of any fiscal year shall 
be carried forward and accumulated in the fund specifically for purposes of the 
Department of Public Health. 

4. According to Ms. Valerie Kegebein of the Department of Public Health's 
AIDS Office, the intent of the proposed ordinance is to enable the DPH to sell 
health promotion-related products which have been developed with private 
contributions and through fund raising efforts on behalf of DPH employees, such 
as AIDS videos for teens, brochures, books and other publications. Ms. Kegebein 
indicates that there has been a demand by the public for DPH developed videos and 
publications, but the DPH does not currently have the authority to sell these items. 

5. Ms. Kegebein reports that DPH estimates that revenues from the sale of 
health-related items would be between $10,000 to $50,000 annually. Ms. Kegebein 
indicates that this estimate is based upon previous AIDS video sales by non-profit 
firms, such as the San Francisco Study Center. Therefore, this item was 
determined to have a fiscal impact. 

6. As previously noted, the Director of Public Health would determine the 
prices of the products sold. The prices and the specific products which are likely 
to be sold have not have not yet been determined. However, Ms. Kegebein 
indicates that preliminary prices for AIDS videos sold would range between $25 to 
$125 each. In addition, Mr. Paul Gibson of the DPH indicates that the cost of the 
producing a "Teens and AIDS" pamphlet, which would likely reflect the prices 
charged for these pamphlets, are as follows: 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

60 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

No. of Items Cost 

1,000-4,999 $0.40 each ($400 to $2,000 total) 

5,000-9,999 $0.35 each ($1,750 to $3,500 total) 

10,000 and Above $0.25 each ($2,500 and above total) 

Shipping/handling would be approximately $20 per 1,000 items 

7. Ms. Kegebein also indicates that the primary goal for the use of proceeds 
deposited into the special fund, is to enable the DPH to develop and create 
additional health-related items that the DPH is currently unable to develop with 
grant or General Fund monies. Ms. Kegebein indicates that the DPH has not yet 
determined which specific items would be purchased and developed with the 
proceeds deposited into the new special fund. 

8. Ms. Kegebein reports that the DPH may have several small expenditures 
for pamphlets which only may cost $1,000 throughout the year. Therefore, the 
DPH recommends to amend the proposed ordinance to include a dollar amount, 
such as $10,000, under which appropriation authority from the Board of 
Supervisors would not be necessary. The Budget Analyst notes that it is possible 
for the DPH to request appropriation authority to the Board of Supervisors for 
several small expenditures at one time. 

Corn m pri fr 

The proposed ordinance states that the Director of the Department of Public 
Health would annually submit in writing to the Mayor, the Controller, and the 
Board of Supervisors a report showing the total receipts and disbursements of the 
fund for the preceding year. However, the proposed ordinance does not specify 
that the Board of Supervisors would have appropriation authority over the funds 
spent from the new proposed special fund. Therefore, the proposed ordinance 
should be amended to provide the Board of Supervisors with appropriation 
authority over the expenditure of funds from the proposed new special fund. 

Rpf*> m m endations 

1. Amend the proposed ordinance to provide the Board of Supervisors with 
appropriation authority over the expenditure of funds from the Department of 
Public Health Publication Fund. 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance, which would amend the San 
Francisco Administrative Code by adding Section 8.35 to authorize the Director of 
Public Health to sell health-related materials and establishing a special fund for 
revenues derived from such sales, is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SI TPKRVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Item 9 - File 147-92-8 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
December 30, 1992. 

Department: Public Library 

Item: Resolution authorizing the City Librarian to apply for a 

donation of equipment valued at $405,416.85 available from 
the Corporate Contributions Committee of Digital Equipment 
Corporation for creating the AIDS Library/Information 
Network; waiving indirect costs. 

Project: AIDS Library Information Network 

Description: The proposed resolution would authorize the Public Library 

to apply for a donation of equipment, valued at $405,416.85, 
donated by the Corporate Contributions Committee of Digital 
Equipment Corporation. The equipment would likely be 
donated by June, 1993. 

The proposed equipment donation would be used in the new 
Main Library and branch libraries to create an AIDS/HIV 
information database that will include AIDS/HPy service 
provider profiles. Specifically the proposed equipment 
donation would be used as follows: 

• establishment of a centrally maintained information and 
referral database; 

• coordination of efforts by numerous AIDS service agencies; 

• replacement of multiple paper-based information and 
referral systems; 

• reduction in duplicated efforts by AIDS service agencies; 

• expanded points of access for important AIDS information 
and referral systems; 

• expanded points of access for important AIDS information 
and referrals; 

• improvement in the quality and uniformity of vital 
information. 

As the AIDS epidemic has grown, funding has not kept pace 
with a widening need for information. The proposed 
equipment would be used to assist AIDS service agencies in 
meeting a growing demand in spite of often diminishing 
resources by vastly improving efficiency and establishing 
alternative sources for this information. 

Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) would provide 
computer hardware and software to establish the AIDS/HIV 



BOARD OF ST JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

62 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Budget: 



Required Match: 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



information database, with a total value of $405,416.85. DEC 
would contribute 75 percent of the cost of the equipment, or 
$304,062.64, and the City and several AIDS/HIV related non- 
profit agencies would provide 25 percent of the cost of the 
equipment as matching funds to DEC, or $101,354.21 for the 
equipment donation. 

Although the equipment donation would be made to the City, 
non-profit agencies which work in the areas of AIDS/HIV 
would also receive a portion of the total equipment donations. 
A breakdown of the equipment allocation is as follows: 



Agency 

San Francisco Public Library 

San Francisco AIDS Foundation 

AIDS Service Providers Association 

Life Center 

Other Agencies 

Total Equipment Purchases 

Installation and Warranties 

Total Equipment 



Equipment 

Value 

$34,544.00 

140,339.00 

45,183.00 

45,183.00 

48.200.00 

$313,449.00 

91.967.85 

$405,416.85 



25 percent of the total estimated costs of $405,416.85, which 
would result in a total required match of $101,354.21 for the 
City and the non-profit agencies. The City's portion of the 
required match would be $11,148.96 (See Comment #2). The 
City's required match of $11,148.96 consists of the City's pro- 
rated share of the equipment ($8,619.84) and the installation 
and warranties ($2,529.12). 

None. The Public Library is requesting that indirect costs be 
waived for the proposed grant funds. 

1. The Public Library has an existing master agreement 
with DEC for the implementation of an automated card 
catalog system for the new Main Library and its branches. 
Under this master agreement, the City receives an estimated 
21 percent discount on equipment. The total value of 
$405,416.85 of the equipment which would be donated to the 
City, and which includes $101,354.21 in 25 percent matching 
funds from the City and non-profit agencies, already includes 
this discount. 

2. As noted above, the proposed grant requires that the City 
and the non-profit agencies provide a 25 percent match of the 
costs, and Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) would pay 

BOARD OF SI JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



63 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



for 75 percent of the equipment costs, including installation 
and warranties. The total required match for the City would 
be $11,148.96. The remaining $90,205.25 of the total required 
matching funds of $101,354.21 would be funded by the non- 
profit agencies. 

3. The source of funds for the City's portion of the matching 
funds has not yet been identified. According to Mr. Ed 
McBride of the Public Library, the City is currently 
requesting DEC to waive this required match. If DEC does 
not waive this required match, Mr. McBride reports that the 
Library Foundation of San Francisco has indicated that the 
required match may be funded through private donations. 
However, the Public Library has not yet received any written 
assurance from either DEC or from the Library Foundation 
regarding whether this required match would be waived, or 
whether it could be funded through private donations. 

4. The proposed equipment donation includes a three year 
warranty, beginning in FY 1992-93 and ending in FY 1994-95. 
The projected annual maintenance costs, which would begin 
in FY 95-96, for the City and the non-profit agencies are as 
follows: 

Projected 

Annual 

Maintenance 

Costs 

A gency 

SF Public Library $1,950 

SF AIDS Foundation 5,520 

AIDS Providers Assn. 4,440 

Life Center 4,440 

Other Agencies 252 

Total $16,602 

These estimated annual maintenance costs beginning in FY 
1995-96 would continue in subsequent fiscal years. 

5. Under the proposed donation, although the equipment 
donated would be used by the City and several non-profit 
agencies, the equipment would be donated to the City, and the 
City would be liable if the non-profit agencies default on 
either providing the required matching funds or providing 
funds for maintenance beginning in FY 95-96. Therefore, the 
City could incur additional General Fund costs of $101,354.21, 
for one-time costs for the total required match, and $16,602.00 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

which could be incurred on an annual basis for maintenance 
costs beginning in FY 95-96. 

6. According to Mr. McBride, if the other agencies default on 
providing the required matching funds, the Public Library 
would not accept the equipment for the non-profit agencies, 
and therefore only maintenance costs may subsequently be 
incurred for those non-profit agencies which have already 
provided the required matching funds. 

7. The proposed new computer equipment is considered to be 
a complete package to establish the AIDS/HrV Library 
Information Network. However, to the extent that any of the 
non-profit agencies that the Public Library expects will 
provide matching funds for components of the system (as 
detailed in the project budget above), fail to provide matching 
funds, the AIDS/HrV Library Information Network would be 
incomplete and the overall efficiency of the system could be 
impaired. 

8. The Disability Access checklist is in the Board File 

9. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request Form. 

10. Given that the source of funds for the required matching 
funds have not yet been identified, and given that the City 
would incur additional maintenance costs funded through 
the General Fund beginning in FY 1995-96, and also could 
incur additional General Fund costs in the event that the 
non-profit agencies default, approval of the proposed 
resolution is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



tfc* 



^.7 



Grant Application Information Form y 

A document required to accompany a proposed resolution 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 



To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
resolution: 



Depa rtment : 



Francisco Public Library 



Contact Person: George E. McBride 



Telephone: 557-42 15 



Proiect Title: ---IDS Library Information Network 
Grant Source" Digital Equipment Corporation 



Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 

This grant will provide computer equipment in the Library 
that will allow networking between three other information 
providers. This network will provide a database of AIDS/HIV 
service providers for persons with HIV/ A IDS. 



Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: 5405,4 16.00 
Maximum Funding Amount Available: 
Required Matching Funds: 



S5.0 million 



Number of Positions Created and Funded: N / A 



Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: $1,950 year 4 and 5 
Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? No 



/p 1 i c a t i 



fe 



t i on ronn 



Term of Grant: Or,-; time gift of equipment 

Date Department Notified of Available funds: March 1992 
Application Due Date: No date specified 



Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or 
appropriations legislation): 



See attached announcement. 



Department Heai Approval 



67 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Item 10 -File 62-92-3 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
December 30, 1992. 

Department: Recreation and Park Department 

Item: Ordinance approving a five-year lease with Frederick Lo for 

management and operation of the Coit Tower Facility in San 
Francisco, California. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would approve a five-year lease to 

Frederick Lo for the management and operation of the Coit 
Tower Facility including the following seven services: 

1. Sell and Collect Admission Fees 

2. Operate the Elevator 

3. Establish and Operate the Gift Shop 

4. Establish and Operate a Mobile Unit Food Stand 

(Outdoor only after June 30, 1993) 

5. Establish and Operate an outdoor Viewing Machine 

Concession on the Sidewalk of Coit Tower Parking Lot 

6. Rental of Space for Special Events 

7. Establish and Operate a Tour Guide Concession. 

Under the proposed five-year lease agreement, effective when 
the Board of Supervisors approves the proposed ordinance, 
Frederick Lo would annually pay the City the greater of the 
following: 

(a) Minimum Rent - sum of $80,226 plus 90 percent of 
gross receipts from admission fees 



(b) Percentage Rent 
following: 



based on gross receipts from the 



Admission Fees 90% 

Gift Shop 20.26% 

Food Stand 15.26% 

Viewing Machine Concessions 50% 

Special Event Rentals 40% 

Tour Concession 10% 

Thus, based on Coit Tower paid admissions in FY 1991-92 of 
$561,438, under the proposed lease, Frederick Lo would pay 
the City a minimum of $585,520 annually (90 percent of 
$561,438 is $505,294 plus the proposed minimum annual 
payment of $80,226). In FY 1991-92, the Department collected 
a total of $571,438 in revenues from Coit Tower operations 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

68 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

including revenues received from the gift shop operated by 
the Friends of the Recreation and Park Department based on 
a minimum of ten percent of gross receipts. Thus, the 
minimum payment of proposed lease would guarantee the 
Recreation and Park Department approximately $14,082 
more than the Department is currently receiving. In 
addition, the Department would reduce its costs by 
approximately $80,000 to $90,000 annually (See Comment 1 
below). 

Under the proposed lease, the City would be responsible for 
paying gas, electricity and water as well as to repair and 
maintain the facility. The lessee would be responsible for 
cleaning and upkeep of the facility. Currently, the City is 
responsible for the cleaning and upkeep at an approximate 
cost of $7,800 annually excluding supplies. 

Since December of 1992, Frederick Lo has been running the 
Coit Tower Facility under a permit on a month-to-month 
lease pending approval of the proposed ordinance by the 
Board of Supervisors. Prior to December, 1992, the Recreation 
and Park Department operated Coit Tower except for the Gift 
Shop which was operated by the Friends of the Recreation 
and Park Department. According to Mr. Dennis Chan of the 
Recreation and Park Department, in FY 1991-92 when the 
City and the Friends of the Recreation and Park Department 
operated the Coit Tower facilities, the Department collected 
approximately $571,438 in revenues. In FY 1991-92, operation 
of the Coit Tower facilities cost the Department 
approximately $135,581 in salaries and fringe benefits. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Phil Arnold of the Recreation and Park 

Department, the Department is proposing to contract out the 
operation of Coit Tower to reduce the Department's 
Temporary Salaries. In FY 1992-93, the Department's budget 
for Temporary Salaries was reduced by approximately $2 
million. The Recreation and Park Department employs three 
permanent 3302 Vendors and one 4321 Cashier II to work at 
Coit Tower. These four employees would be transferred into 
other positions that are being funded through the 
Department's Temporary Salaries. The Temporary 
Employees who currently fill these other positions would 
essentially be "bumped" by the Coit Tower permanent 
employees. Mr. Arnold reports that by contracting out Coit 
Tower operations, the Department would save an estimated 
$80,000 to $90,000 annually in Temporary Salaries. This 
$80,000 to $90,000 in Temporary Salary savings would be part 
of the $2 million reduction in the Department's FY 1992-93 
budget. Ms. Robin Bergstaller of the Recreation and Park 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Department reports that the Department does not expect to 
lay-off Temporary Employees. Rather, the Department would 
not hire part-time employees on an as needed basis as has 
been the Department practice historically. 

In addition, the Department provides approximately one 
hour each day of custodial services to the Coit Tower 
facilities. The custodian who provided the custodial services 
to Coit Tower would not be laid off because Coit Tower was 
only one of many locations the custodian cleaned. According 
to Mr. Mike Morlin of the Recreation and Park Department, 
the Department would save approximately $50.00 a week 
from reduced overtime expenses associated with cleaning 
Coit Tower on the week-ends. 

2. Mr. Chan reports the proposed lease for the Coit Tower 
facilities was competitively bid and advertised in the 
Chronicle, Examiner, Independent, Sun Reporter and other 
minority newspapers. In addition, Mr. Chan reports that the 
Department sent notices to vendors on the Human Rights 
Commission list and the lists at the Purchaser's Office. 
According to Mr. Chan, eight vendors picked up bid packages 
for the proposed lease and two submitted bids. The other bid 
received was submitted by Deborah Heller-Israel, and had an 
estimated minimum annual guarantee of $36,000 plus 91 
percent of annual admission fees or approximately $546,909 
annually (based on 1991-92 paid admissions) which is 
approximately $38,611 annually lower than Frederick Lo's 
estimated minimum annual guarantee of $585,520. 

3. Frederick Lo is a City certified MBE. 

4. According to Mr. Arnold, the Department anticipates that 
revenues generated from the Coit Tower Gift Shop would 
increase under the proposed lease by having an experienced, 
professional vendor operate the shop rather than the Friends 
of the Recreation and Park Department, a non-profit 
organization. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

70 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Item 11 -File 101-92-21 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
December 30, 1992. 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Social Services (DSS) 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 
$524,636 for permanent salaries and related mandatory 
fringe benefits and day care assistance. 

$524,636 

Miscellaneous Federal and State Subventions 

The State Department of Social Services has allocated State 
and Federal revenues to the City to implement court-ordered 
childcare payments for the Non-GAIN Employment and 
Training Program (NET). The proposed ordinance would 
appropriate the funds for the mandated childcare payments 
and fund a Social Worker position to administer the 
program. 

Under the terms of the court case, Miller vs. McMahon, 
counties are required to provide for NET childcare payments 
while AFDC parents attend NET programs. DSS began 
receiving State and Federal revenues and began making 
these childcare payments in September, 1992. DSS has 
assigned an existing GAIN Social Worker to administer the 
program which has been funded with the proposed Federal 
and State funds since September, 1992. The proposed 
supplemental appropriation would provide NET childcare 
payments through the end of the fiscal year and provide 
funding for an additional Social Worker to administer the 
program. 

The Department has TXed (temporary exchange) an existing 
vacant Hearing Officer position to create the requested Social 
Worker position. 

Under the NET childcare program, the NET recipient must 
enroll in a job training program and the NET recipient would 
find their own childcare provider. The childcare provider 
invoices the City for services provided to the NET recipient. 
DSS has established a childcare rate structure which DSS 
will reimburse the childcare provider. Currently, DSS will 
reimburse a childcare provider from $1.71 per hour to $6.48 
per hour depending on the age of the children and the type of 
childcare provided such as in-home child care or child care 



BQARX) OF SUPEHVISP I SS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

71 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

centers. The childcare provider is only paid for those hours 
spent with the NET recipient's child while the NET recipient 
is attending job training courses. 

Budget Permanent Salaries 

2912 Sr. Social Worker (10 months funding) $30,551 

Fringe Benefits 7,708 

DSS Administration 15,783 

Childcare Services 486,377 

Total $540,419 

Comments: 1. As reflected in the proposed budget above and as certified 

by the Controller, DSS would receive $540,419 instead of 
$524,636 as the proposed ordinance currently reads. Thus, 
the proposed ordinance should be amended to appropriate 
$540,419 instead of $524,636. 

2. As previously noted, the Department of Social Services 
began receiving State and Federal monies and began 
childcare payments and paying the salary of the Sr. Social 
Worker in September, 1992. Therefore, the proposed 
ordinance should be amended to appropriate the $540,419 
retroactively. 

3. The $15,783 budgeted for DSS administrative expenses 
would reduce the City's General Fund contribution to DSS's 
administrative costs. 

4. Ms. Sally Kipper of DSS reports that this is the first time 
DSS has provided NET childcare payments. As such, Ms. 
Kipper advises that DSS is unsure how much DSS will 
actually require in FY 1992-93 for NET childcare payments. 
DSS currently has 150 people in the NET program. However, 
Ms. Kipper believes this number will increase through the 
fiscal year. The proposed $540,419 is the amount the State is 
subvening to the City for these services. However, Ms. Kipper 
advises that the State will only pay the City for expenses 
incurred. Therefore, if the City spends less than $540,419 for 
the NET childcare program, the City will receive less than 
$540,419 from the State. As previously noted, the amount of 
childcare required by the NET recipients depends on the 
number of hours the recipient is enrolled in job training 
courses. 

5. The proposed TX of an existing Hearing Officer position to 
create a Social Worker position is only for FY 1992-93. The 
Department will substitute the Hearing Officer position for 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

72 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



the proposed Social Worker position in the Department's FY 
1993-94 budget. 

6. Ms. Kipper also advises that the source of State and 
Federal funding for the NET childcare program in FY 1993- 
94 has not been established. 



Recommendation: Amend the proposed ordinance to: 



1. Appropriate $540,419 instead of $524,636 as the proposed 
ordinance currently reads. 

2. Appropriate the $540,419 retroactively. 
Approve the proposed ordinance as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

73 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Item 12 -File 61-92-7 



Department: 
Item: 

Description: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Water Department 

Resolution granting an extension of time for awarding Water 
Department Contract No. WD-2123, City Distribution Division 
Machine Shop Upgrade. 

The proposed resolution would extend the period of time for the 
PUC to award a Water Department, City Distribution Division 
contract to upgrade the machine shop located at 1990 Newcomb 
Avenue in the City. Section 6.1 of the Administrative Code 
stipulates that award of contracts over $500,000 must be made 
within 30 days after the receipt of bids unless the time for the 
award is extended by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. 
Section 6.1 also provides for a 30-day extension period in order 
to develop, implement or improve a qualifying affirmative 
action nondiscrimination program, as required by Section 12B 
of the Administrative Code. Since bids for Contract No. WD- 
2123 were received and publicly opened on July 13, 1992, the 
total 60-day period extended to September 11, 1992. 

The contracted work consists of remodeling the mezzanine air 
space within the existing Machine Shop Building into two 
offices for the building supervisor and secretarial staff. The 
construction includes excavation, concrete foundation, 
structural steel framing, elevated concrete slab, heating, 
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system work, 
electrical panels, utilities, architectural finishes and office 
furnishings. 

The estimate of PUC's Utilities Engineering Bureau (UEB) to 
accomplish the construction work was $224,000 and 120 
calendar days are allowed to complete the work specified in the 
contract after award of contract. The funds for the project have 
already been allocated from the Water Department's FY 1991- 
92 Capital Improvement Program funds. 

The PUC reports that the Department received qualified bids 
from three contracting firms as follows: 



Contractor 



Bid 
Amount 



AR Construction Company $201,849.01 

A. Ruiz Construction Company 236,568.00 

Eligom International Construction 247,700.00 



MBE/WBE 
Status 

MBE 
MBE 
MBE 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

74 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

AR Construction Company was selected as the low bid 
contractor for the proposed project. According to Mr. Deane 
Gough of the Utilities Engineering Bureau (UEB), the second 
bidder, A. Ruiz Construction filed a protest against the bid 
submitted by AR Construction Company. UEB staff provided 
an analysis and response to the protest which A. Ruiz 
Construction did not further contend. Subsequently, the PUC 
Contract Compliance Office discovered inconsistent 
affirmative action goals documentations in the AR 
Construction bid package which required further review by 
PUC legal counsel. While this matter was resolved in favor of 
AR Construction, the time required to resolve the protest and to 
review further affirmative action documentation resulted in 
the subject contract not being awarded within the 60 day 
period (by September 11, 1992) specified in Section 6.1 of the San 
Francisco Administrative Code. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Gough advises that the PUC awarded the subject 

contract to A R. Construction Company on November 24, 1992. 
Therefore, the actual period of time that elapsed from the date 
the bids were received (July 13, 1992), to the award of the 
contract, was 134 days. 

2. Since the PUC has already awarded the subject contract to 
AR Construction Company, the proposed legislation should be 
amended to retroactively grant an extension for the PUC to 
award the Water Department Contract No. WD-2123. 

3. The Department of City Planning, in accordance with the 
provisions of Chapter 31, Section 31.22(a) of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code, has determined that this project is 
categorically exempted from the California Environmental 
Quality Act (CEQA) and other State guidelines for 
environmental review. 



Recommendation: 



Amend the proposed resolution to retroactively grant an 
extension of time for the PUC to award the subject contract and 
approve the resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

75 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Item 13 - File 172-92-22 



Department 
Item: 



Amount: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Resolution authorizing the Municipal Railway to modify an 
existing contract with Breda Costruzioni Ferroviarie S.p.A. 
to purchase 5 additional light rail vehicles and make other 
related changes including extending the contract period to 
June 4, 1993, for the purpose of exercising the purchase of the 
remaining 15 option vehicles. 

$10,985,000 



Source of Funds: Federal Transit Administration (FT A) Section 3 Grant Funds 

Required Match: None 

Time Extension: Six Month Extension from December 4, 1992 to June 4, 1993 

Description: On May 22, 1989, the Board of Supervisors approved 

Resolution 403-89 (File 94-89-2) which authorized the PUC to 
apply for, accept and expend $60,224,066 in Federal FTA 
Section 3 and local match funds to acquire an additional 40 
light rail vehicles (LRVs) for planned rail extensions and 
projected ridership growth throughout the expanded fixed 
rail network for the City. At that time it was anticipated and 
projected that a purchase contract for 40 LRVs would cost 
$53,000,000 or $1,325,000 per LRV. This purchase was not 
made. 

Instead, on November 12, 1991 the Board of Supervisors 
authorized the PUC to enter into a contract with Breda 
Costruzioni Ferroviarie S.p.A. of Italy to manufacture 35 
LRVs, using a combination of Federal FTA Section 3 and 
local matching funds totaling $83,770,790 of which $72,765,000 
would be needed to manufacture the 35 LRVs ($2,079,000 per 
LRV). Subsequently, on December 4, 1991, the Municipal 
Railway (MUNI) entered into a purchase agreement with 
Breda Costruzioni Ferroviarie S.p.A. to acquire the 35 LRVs. 
The contract included an option to purchase up to 20 
additional LRVs within one year at $2,197,000 per LRV. 

On October 23, 1992, MUNI and Breda Costruzioni 
Ferroviarie S.p.A. agreed to a contract modification which 
provided for these changes as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

76 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



• Five (5) additional LRVs would be ordered before the 
December 4, 1992 original expiration date for the option to 
purchase 20 additional LRVs; 

• the expiration date for the option to purchase the 
remaining 15 LRVs (20 less 5) would be extended six months 
from December 4, 1992 to June 4, 1993, with no increase in the 
purchase price; 



• various changes to technical specifications and the 
furnishing of additional parts at no additional cost; 



various ch 
lishing of ad 

• increase vehicle warranty from 5 years to 10 years; and 

• the contract schedule would be extended by two months 
with delivery of the four prototype vehicles delayed by an 
additional two months. Delivery of the first two prototypes 
will change from October 1993 to February 1994. The second 
two prototypes will be delayed from December 1993 to April 
1994. Ten months after producing the second two prototypes 
(February 1995), the first production cars will be delivered. 
This delay covers all the resolved specification changes as 
negotiated between MUNI and Breda Costruzioni Ferroviarie 
S.p.A. and will not be subject to a later claim by the 
contractor. 

The proposed contract amendment would increase the 
current contract with Breda Costruzioni Ferroviarie S.p.A. 
by $10,985,000 from $82,087,695 to $93,072,695, as follows: 



Description 

Original Contract (LRV Cost) 
Related Costs including Tooling 
Spare Parts, Training, Manuals 
and Test Equipment 
Subtotal Original Contract 

Amendment (subject of 
this legislation) 

Total Amended Contract 



Cost per 
LRV 


No. of 
LRVs 


Total Cost 


$2,079,000 


35 


$72,765,000 

9.322.695 

$82,087,695 


2,197,000 


_5_ 


10.985.000 




40 


$93,072,695 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

77 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Comments: 1. PUC Finance Bureau has provided the following summary 

of the sources and uses of the total funding pertaining to the 
LRV Contract with Breda Costruzioni Ferroviarie: 

Sources: 

FTA (formerly UMTA) Section 3 Grant Funds $45,168,048 

State Guideway Grant 10,018,112 

State Urban Rail 5,000,000 

Bridge Tolls, AB 664 992,750 

Bridge Tolls, Measure 1 3,792,854 

Transit Impact Development Fee 13,434,076 

Transportation Authority Sales Tax Revenues 12,900,000 

Safe Harbor Lease Revenues 8.000.000 

Total Sources $99,305,840 



Uses: 






Pre-Contract Costs: 






Specification and Bid Process 


$1,113,000 




Purchasing Contract Consultant 






(Booz-Allen and Hamilton) 


370,095 




MUNI Purchasing support 


200.000 




Subtotal 




$1,683,095 


Contract Costs: 






Purchase of 35 Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) 


72,765,000 




Purchase of 5 Additional LRVs (subject of 






this legislation) 


10,985,000 




Tooling 


3,664,474 




Spare Parts 


3350,893 




Training 


348,283 




Manuals 


852,243 




Test Equipment 


1.106.802 




Subtotal 




93,072,695 


Contingency: 




4.550.050 


Total Uses 




$99^05,840 



2. Mr. Jerry Levine of PUC Finance Bureau advises that it is 
intended to fund the $10,985,000 purchase of the 5 additional 
LRVs from the $45,168,048 FTA Section 3 funds component of 
the total $99,305,840 funds received for the purchase of new 
LRVs. 

3. In addition, Mr. Levine advises that MUNI has placed its 
order to Breda Costruzioni Ferroviarie S.p.A. for the subject 5 
additional LRVs but is withholding a notice to proceed with 
the purchase until the Board of Supervisors approves the 
subject resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

78 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



4. Mr. Levine also advises that the option to purchase an 
additional 15 LRVs would be at the same price of $2,197,000 
per vehicle ($32,955,000 for 15 LRVs) as the price agreed to in 
the subject contract modification. 

5. Mr. Levine further advises that the furnishing of 
additional parts at no additional cost is limited to 7 sets of 
track brake wear plates as replacements. The value of these 
parts is estimated to be $43,680. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

78a 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



Item U- File 65-92-21 
Department 

Item: 
Location: 



Mayor's Office of Housing 
Department of Real Estate 

Ordinance authorizing and approving a sublease of real 
property located at 701 Frederick Street, commonly known 
as the former boys' gym of Polytechnic High School. 

701 Frederick Street 



Purpose of Sublease: Teaching and training facility for circus artists. 

Sublessee: The Pickle Family Circus 

No. of Sq. Ft: Approximately 7,240 square feet 

Annual Revenue: One dollar 



% Increase Over 
1991-92: 



None 



Utilities and Janitor 

Services: To be paid by sublessee, the Pickle Family Circus 

Term of Sublease: June 1, 1992 through May 31, 1994 

Escalation: None 



Comments: 



1. The Polytechnic High School, located at 701 Frederick 
Street, is owned by the San Francisco Unified School 
District (SFUSD), but has been leased by SFUSD to the City 
for a period of 75 years. According to the Department of 
Real Estate, in 1985 the City pre-paid $2.5 million to SFUSD, 
which was determined to be the value of the 75-year lease. 
Through the Mayor's Office of Housing, 114 low and 
moderate income housing units were constructed on the 
property and sold to qualified buyers. 

In April, 1990 the Board of Supervisors approved a sublease 
of the former boys' gymnasium of the Polytechnic High 
School with the Pickle Family Circus (File 64-90-6). At that 
time, the Mayor's Office of Housing reported that the 
former boys' gymnasium had been vacant and in a state of 
disuse for approximately 13 years. The Mayor's Office of 
Housing also reported in April, 1990 that the sublease 
which commenced in June, 1990 with the Pickle Family 
Circus, with annual consideration consisting of one dollar 
and specified circus performances, was a temporary 
arrangement until a long-term use for the facility could be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

79 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



identified. The Mayor's Office of Housing reported in 1990 
that it was preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to 
identify potential long-term uses for the gymnasium. 

2. Mr. Ted Dientsfrey, Director of the Mayor's Office of 
Housing states that an RFP has not been yet been issued for 
the former boys' gymnasium at Polytechnic High School. 
Mr. Dientsfrey states that neighborhood residents in the 
vicinity of the facility have expressed interest in developing 
a community center on the property, and the Mayor's Office 
of Housing intends to initiate discussions with 
neighborhood residents concerning such a proposal. 

However, Mr. Dientsfrey reports that a major impediment 
to developing a long-term use for the facility is the need for 
major structural improvements to the facility. Mr. 
Dientsfrey states than any proposal to develop a long-term 
use for the property would have to identify a program or 
activity to be housed at the facility as well as a source of 
funds to make structural improvements, including seismic 
strengthening and roofing improvements. 

Mr. Mark Delaney of the Mayor's Office of Housing states 
that the renovations needed at the former boys' gymnasium 
include repairs to heating and plumbing facilities, 
modifications to ensure compliance with fire codes and 
provide handicapped access, floor repairs, and installation 
of walls or partitions to convert the gymnasium to an 
alternative use. Mr. Delaney states that the cost of the 
repairs needed at the facility is estimated at approximately 
$1.6 million. 

Mr. Dientsfrey indicates that the Mayor's Office of Housing 
may issue an RFP during calendar year 1993 in an effort to 
identify prospective tenants and potential uses for the 
property. Depending on the type of activity which could be 
housed in the facility, Mr. Dientsfrey states that 
Community Development Block Grant funds may be used to 
finance the necessary repairs and modifications of the 
gymnasium. 

3. In view of the need for major improvements to the 
facility, Mr. Dientsfrey states that the proposed sublease 
with the Pickle Family Circus is not an economic 
arrangement to generate revenue for the City, but a care- 
taking arrangement to prevent the "wasting of a public 
asset." The regular presence of the Pickle Family Circus at 
the facility discourages vandalism and provides input 
concerning conditions at the facility, such as leaks in the 

BOARD OF SI JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

80 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

roof, which should be corrected in order to prevent serious 
long-term damage to the building interior. 

4. In addition to an annual rental payment of $1.00, the 
Pickle Family Circus would provide several circus 
performances in consideration for its use of the premises 
during the term of the proposed sublease. The proposed 
sublease states that the Pickle Family Circus would provide 
a team of circus artists twice each year to visit a facility 
designated by the City, and that its performances at these 
facilities would be presented without charge for admission. 
In addition, the proposed sublease states that the Pickle 
Family Circus would provide the City with 100 tickets to a 
rehearsal of its Winter Holiday show at the Palace of Fine 
Arts. 

Mr. Delaney states that the proposed sublease may be 
amended to permit the Pickle Family Circus to provide 
other services in-kind, in lieu of the two circus 
performances and 100 tickets to the Winter Holiday show as 
specified in the proposed sublease, through mutual 
agreement between the Pickle Family Circus and the 
Mayor's Office of Housing. 

5. Mr. John Paneri of the Department of Real Estate states 
that information on the fair market value of gymnasium 
facilities is not available, since the Department of Real 
Estate has not conducted market surveys concerning such 
facilities and the market demand for gymnasia is not well 
established. 

6. The term of the proposed sublease would be June 1, 1992 
through May 31, 1994, and does not contain a right of 
renewal. According to Mr. Paneri, the Department of Real 
Estate has not executed the sublease with the Pickle Family 
Circus, and is awaiting authorization from the Board of 
Supervisors in order to do so. Since the Pickle Family 
Circus has occupied the premises since the expiration of 
the previous sublease on May 31, 1992, the proposed 
sublease would apply retroactively to June 1, 1992. 
However, since the sublease has not yet been executed, the 
proposed ordinance, which would authorize the 
Department of Real Estate to prepare and execute the 
sublease, need not ratify previous actions of the Department 
of Real Estate. 

Recommendation; Approval of the proposed sublease, at an annual rental rate 
of one dollar over the two year term of the sublease, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Item 15 - File 101-92-27 

1. The proposed resolution would establish $1,010,373,434 as the 1992-93 net 
appropriation limit for the City and County of San Francisco as required by 
Article XIII B of the California Constitution. 

2. On November 6, 1979, California voters approved Proposition 4, known as 
the Gann Initiative, which added Article XIII B to the California Constitution. 
Article XIII B limits the growth of appropriations from the proceeds of taxes of 
the State of California and local governments to the percentage change in 
population and the lesser of the percentage change in the cost of living or in per 
capita personal income. The State Government Code requires that each local 
government establish its appropriation limit (Gann Limit) by resolution each 
year. 

3. The City's net Gann Limit must be adjusted for Trial Court Funding 
revenues. A transfer of an estimated $15,555,000 of the City's Gann Limit must be 
made to the State of California in order to receive a State Trial Court Funding 
Block Grant of an equivalent amount. The State requires that the City and County 
Gann Limit be decreased by the net revenue amount that the City and County will 
receive from the State for Trial Court Funding so that the State Gann Limit can be 
increased by that same amount. 

4. The Controller has computed the 1992-93 Gann Limit as follows: 

1991-92 Revised (See Comment 4) Gross Gann Limit $1,015,177,702 

Adjusted by: 

Decrease in California per Capita Personal Income (0.64%) 

Increase in Population 1.71% 

1992-93 Gross Gann Limit $1,025,928,434* 

Less Trial Court Funding Revenues 15.555.000 

1992-93 Net Gann Limit $1,010,373,434 

* 0.9936 (1 less 0.0064) times 1.0171 equals 1.010590 times 
$1,015,177,702. 

5. The Controller's Office monitors revenues affected by the Gann Limit 
throughout the year. At year end, a final computation is prepared comparing 
actual proceeds of taxes to the Gann Limit. At that time, two tests must be met. 
First, all actual proceeds of taxes must be below the Gann Limit; and second, all 
actual proceeds of taxes collected must be appropriated. If either test is not met, 
excess revenues collected must be returned to the taxpayers within two years. 

6. The amount appropriated in the City's fiscal year 1992-93 budget that is 
subject to the Gann Limit is $937,851,718 which is $72,521,716 less than the net 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

82 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

1992-93 Gann Limit of $1,010,373,434. In accordance with the Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance, all other 1992-93 tax proceeds are appropriated to the 
City's General Fund General Reserve (Contributed Revenue Reserve), which is 
used to fund supplemental appropriations during the current fiscal year and the 
City's budget for the next fiscal year. 

Comments 

1. The Gann Limit was first applied in 1980-81 using the actual 1978-79 
appropriations that would have been subject to the limit, had it existed then, as 
the base year (as called for by Article XIII B of the California Constitution). The 
1978-79 base was adjusted for changes in per capita personal income, cost of living 
and population to obtain the 1980-81 limit. In each successive year, the prior 
year's limit was used as the base for computation of the new limit. 

2. State Proposition 111, approved by the voters in June 1990, made several 
changes to the Article XIII B (3) which are reflected in the City's computations as 
follows: 

- the term "change in the cost of living" was redefined as the percentage 
change in the California Per Capita Personal Income (CPCPI) from the 
preceding year for all years after 1990-91. 

- the appropriations limit for fiscal year 1992-93 was computed by adjusting 
the 1986-87 figures using the CPCPI for each subsequent year. 

- appropriations for "Qualified capital outlay as defined by the legislature" 
are excluded from proceeds of taxes. This results in a reduction of 
$11,286,558 for fiscal year 1992-93, from appropriations of proceeds of taxes 
subject to the limit. 

3. The City Attorney has previously advised that the City's contributions to 
fund certain voter approved employee benefits constitute "debt service" under 
Article XIII B. Therefore, appropriations of taxes used to meet those obligations 
could be excluded from both the calculation of the City's annual appropriations 
limit and from appropriations subject to the limit. In the case of Santa Barbara 
Taxpayers Association v. County Santa Barbara , the Court of Appeals held that 
appropriations made by that County to its retirement system were not "debt 
service" within the meaning of Article XIII B, and therefore must be included in 
calculations of both the appropriation limit and of appropriations subject to that 
limit. The State Supreme Court declined to review the case. The City Attorney 
was of the opinion that the Santa Barbara decision was wrongly decided and that 
the retirement system at issue in that case may in fact be significantly different 
from San Francisco's system. In 1989, the City Attorney advised the Controller's 
Office that continuing to treat mandatory employee fringe benefits as the City has 
done until 1992-93, would preserve the City's opportunity to challenge the Santa 
Barbara decision. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

83 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

4. Litigation was subsequently filed by the San Francisco Taxpayer's 
Association to challenge the City's determination to exclude appropriations to 
fund the City's Employee Retirement System from proceeds of taxes subject to the 
Gann Limit. While a motion for summary judgment filed by the Association was 
granted in favor of the Association, the City prevailed with the Court of Appeals 
which held that "the City's contributions to the voter approved retirement fund 
constitute a legally authorized contractual "debt service" which is expressly 
exempted from the Gann spending limitation". The State Supreme Court held 
that the appropriations made by the City to its retirement system were not 
considered to be debt service and therefore must not be excluded from calculations 
of both the appropriation limit and the appropriations subject to the Gann Limit. 
Pursuant to ruling by the State Supreme Court, the Controller has recomputed 
the base year limitation to exclude retirement contributions. The revised 1991-92 
Gann Limit based on the recomputed base year limitation is $1,015,177,702. 

5. In addition, based upon the City Attorney's memorandum of opinion of 
June 14, 1988, the City is excluding Court and Federal mandates from 
appropriations subject to the limit. The City Attorney has advised that the 
exclusion of Court and Federal mandates is consistent with the meaning of 
Article XIII B. No legal challenges have been filed questioning this 
interpretation. The five mandates for FY 1992-93 totaling $54,649,943 that were 
identified by a survey of all City departments and verified by the Controller's Office 
are as follows: 

Police Consent Decree $15,389,111 

Jail Overcrowding 15,503,220 

Federal Resource Conservation Act (Toxics) 4,641,506 

Firefighters Consent Decree 10,453,359 

Back Pay Cases 8.662.747 

Total Court and Federal mandates $54,649,943 



Rpcom mendation 

Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

84 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 

Ttem 16 - File 101-92-29 

1. This item is a hearing to consider appropriating $131,500 (a 
supplemental appropriation) to the Assessor's Professional Services budget for 
1992-93 to be deposited with Contra Costa County, acting as administrator, for 
obtaining professional consultants regarding a ten-county joint Phase I effort to 
defend a joint property reassessment by the ten counties of the Viacom 
International, Inc. (Viacom) cable television company's property. 

2. In 1987, Viacom reported a change of ownership which, under the 
provisions of Proposition 13, requires the San Francisco County Assessor to 
reappraise Viacom's property in order to determine the property's value for 
assessing property taxes. Because Viacom purchased the cable television systems 
in ten California Counties counties (including Alameda, Butte, Colusa, Contra 
Costa, Marin, Napa, Shasta, Sonoma, Tehama and San Francisco) at the same 
time, the ten counties pooled their resourses to perform a joint reappraisal of 
Viacom's property. The joint reappraisal was then used by each of the ten 
counties to make their reassessments of property taxes for Viacom begining in 
1987. 

3. Viacom has challenged the joint reappraisal by the ten counties both 
legally and through assessment appeals processes in all of the ten counties. 
Again acting jointly, the ten County Assessors are preparing a defense of the joint 
reappraisal that has been used as the basis for assessing property taxes on 
Viacom since 1987. In Phase I of this defense, the ten counties will retain 
professional consultants to perform an analysis of the joint reassessment 
regarding its correctness and assist the ten counties' attornies in preparing the 
defense of the joint reassessment. The professional titles and rates of pay for the 
consultants have not yet been determined. 

4. The Phase I contributions of each of the ten counties based on their 
relative number of cable television subscribers are as follows: 



County 

Alameda 

Butte 

Colusa 

Contra Costa 

Marin 

Napa 

San Francisco 

Shasta 

Sonoma 

Tehama 

Total 100.00 $354,000 



Percent 




Allocation 


Contribution 


12.98 


$46,000 


3.38 


11,900 


0.33 


1,200 


15.21 


53,900 


15.27 


54,100 


3.42 


12,000 


37.16 


131,500 


5.24 


18,600 


6.04 


21,400 


0.97 


3.400 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

85 



Memo to Finance Committee 
January 13, 1993 



5. The County Assessors of the ten counties have designated Contra Costa 
County to act as administrator of the funding for this project. The proposed 
supplemental appropriation (draft) would provide for the payment of $131,500 to 
Contra Costa County as San Francisco's share of the costs of obtaining the 
professional consultants. 

1. The Assessor's Office reports that Viacom's property tax assessment 
increased by approximately $2.0 million in 1987 as a result of the reappraisal of 
Viacom property. Therefore, since 1987, the City has accrued approximately $10.0 
million in increased property taxes from Viacom for the five year period from 1987 
to 1992. The Controller's Office reports that in 1991 Viacom agreed to pay the back 
taxes owed over a five year period and that Viacom is up-to-date in making the 
payments required by that agreement. However, as previously noted, Viacom has 
challenged this reappraisal. 

2. In October, 1991 Viacom began including a $1.55 increase in their 
monthly charges to subscribers ( $18.60 annually) in order to pass the increase in 
property taxes resulting from the reassessment of Viacom's property through to 
the subscribers. At $18.60 annually for each of the approximately 154,000 cable 
subscribers, this increase in the monthly charge would generate approximately 
$2.9 million annually that would recover all of the current year's increased 
property tax based on the reappraisal plus a portion of the back taxes owed for the 
years from 1987 to 1991. The Internal Audits Division of the Controller's Office has 
analyzed Viacom's basis and calculations of the $1.55 monthly charge. 

3. The Assessor's Office and the City Attorney have not projected future 
activities or costs of this project beyond the proposed Phase I analysis of the joint 
reappraisal. 




cc: Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Alioto 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Bierman 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Kennedy 



Supervisor Maher 

Supervisor Shelley 

Clerk of the Board 

Chief Administrative Officer 

Controller 

Jean Mariani 

Barbara Kolesar 

Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

86 



MO.M 



tALENDA R — ~\k& 



\-io\O 



A MEETING OF 

BUDGET COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 






WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1993 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS MIGDEN, HSIEH, SHELLEY 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR MIGDEN 

CLERK: KAY GULBENGAY 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 

counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Budget Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of 
the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member 
of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the matter 
shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item. 

(a) File 79-92-3.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Mayor's Office of Community Development, in the amount of $86,359, public 
service funding for the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families. 
(Mayor's Office of Community Development) 

ACTION: Continued to February 10, 1993 meeting. 

(b) File 79-91-2.6 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Mayor's Office of Community Development, in the amount of $100,000, for 
required audits of subrecipients of community Development Block Grant funds, 
(contractor Calvin Louie, CPA). (Mayor's Office of Community Development) 

ACTION: Release of $100,000 recommended. Filed 

(c) File 133-92-2.3 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Chief Administrative Officer/Solid Waste Management Program, in an amount 
totalling $241,000, for market research and marketing and advertising services, 
Barnes Clarke, Inc. (contractor). (CAO/Solid Waste Management Program) 

ACTION: Continued to January 27, 1993 meeting. 



(d) File 133-92-2.4 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 

Chief Administrative Officer/Solid Waste Management Program, in the amount 
of $4,500, for printing of a student recycling handbook. (CAO/Solid Waste 
Management Program) 



ACTION: Release of $4,500 recommended. Filed. 



(e) File 146-92-26.2. [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, in the of amount $99,339, for 
street based outreach intervention, to high-risk youth in the Haight Ashbury 
neighborhood, (contractor) Haight-Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc. (Department of 
Public Health) 

ACTION: Release of $99,339 recommended. Filed. 
REGULAR CALENDAR 



2. File 30-93-1 . [CHIP Funds/1992-93] Resolution authorizing adoption of the County 
description of proposed expenditure of California Healthcare for Indigents Program 
(CHIP) Funds for fiscal year 1992/93 and that the chairperson or duly authorized 
representative of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco 
can certify the County description of proposed expenditure of the CHIP Funds for 
fiscal year 1992/93. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

3. File 97-92-67 . [Board of Supervisors - Fees] Ordinance amending Administrative 
Code by adding Section 8.37 thereto, authorizing the Clerk of the Board of 
Supervisors to collect fees to defray the cost of mailing and providing copies of 
documents relating to the business of the Board of Supervisors, and authorizing the 
Clerk of the Board to waive, in exigent circumstances, the fees authorized by this 
section. (Clerk of the Board) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to February 3, 1993 meeting. 

4. File 170-93-1 . [Equipment Lease] Ordinance providing for the approval and 
execution and delivery by Officers of the City and County of San Francisco of an 
Equipment Lease Supplement No. 2 between the City and County of San Francisco 
Finance Corporation, as lessor and the City and County of San Francisco, as lessee 
with respect to equipment to be used for City purposes and the related certificate of 
approval; providing for reimbursement to the City of certain City expenditures prior 
to the issuance of lease revenue bonds and approving the issuance of Lease Revenue 
Bonds by said nonprofit corporation; and providing that said bonds shall be subject to 
the certification of the Controller of the City and County of San Francisco prior to 
the sale of said bonds; and providing for the execution of documents in connection 
therewith and ratifying previous actions taken in connection therewith. (Chief 
Administrative Officer) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to January 27, 1993 meeting. 



File 102-92-13 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 
1992-93, Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families, reflecting the 
addition of five positions (Classifications 9786 Assistant to Mayor III (1), 9782 
Assistant to Mayor I (1), 9740 Staff Assistant IV, Special Project (1), 1632 Sr. 
Account Clerk (1), 1422 Jr. Clerk Typist (1). (Civil Service Commission) 
(Companion measure to File 101-92-31) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to January 27, 1993 meeting. 

File 101-92-31 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $70,804, Mayor's 
Office of Children, Youth and their Families, for permanent salaries - miscellaneous 
and related mandatory fringe benefits and rescinding $56,742 from other contractual 
services, for the creation of five positions. (Supervisor Achtenberg) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amended on page 1 line 2 (title) by replacing "$56,742" 
with $46,742". 

New Title : "Appropriating $70,804 for permanent salaries - 
Miscellaneous and related mandatory fringe benefits and rescinding 
$46,742 from other contractual services, for the creation of five (5) 
positions, Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families for fiscal 
year 1992-93." 
Continued to January 27, 1993 meeting. 



F 

10.01 

3 
hoWh 



CITY AND COUNTY 



BC 




Public Li6rary, (Documents *Dept. 
%&&(: Janz 'Hudson 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



OARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 

January 15. 1993 






DOC IMFNTS DEPT. 
JAN 2 1993 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



/// 

TO: Budget Committee 

//// 
FROM: Budget Analyst /{lca^^^L 

SUBJECT: January 20, 1993 Budget Committee Meeting 
//III 

Item la -File 79-92-3.1 



Department: Mayor's Office of Co mm unity Development (MOCD) 

Item: Release of Reserved Funds 

Amount: $86,359 

Source of Funds: 1992 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program 

Description; The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the Mayor to 

apply for, receive and expend the City's 1992 Community 
Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement from the U. S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Resolution 
No. 975-92 (File 79-92-3). At the same time, the Board of 
Supervisors placed $86,359 on reserve, which had been 
earmarked for public service funding for the Mayor's Office 
of Children, Youth and Their Families (MOCYF). The 
reserve was placed on such funds pending Civil Service 
review and classification approval of two new staff positions 
for the Mayor's Employment Opportunities 1000 (EO 1000) 
Program. The Board of Supervisors did approve $13,641 for 
various overhead costs (rent, supplies and equipment) for the 
EO 1000 Program. The goal of the EO 1000 Program is to place 
1,000 youth graduates of various youth training programs 
into permanent jobs. 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 

The released funds would be used to hire two new positions 
for EO 1000 Program and pay for 10 percent of the MOCYF 
Director's salary to manage this program, as follows: 

Personnel 

2-9736 Staff Assistant II, Special Project 

(Temporary Positions) $68,058 

1-9792 Assistant to Mayor VI ( 10 percent) 7, 193 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 8.675 

Total Personnel Costs $83,926 * 

* MOCYFs Project Budget of $83,926 is $2,433 less than the requested 
release of funds totaling $86,359. 

The Mayor's EO 1000 Program will augment current local 
efforts to place 1,712 youth into jobs by an additional 1,000 
youth job placements. The EO 1000 Program will focus on 
matching trainees of the City's many community-based 
employment agencies with existing opportunities for gainful 
employment with local firms. A total of 41 community based 
employment agencies are currently under contract with the 
Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) and the 
Private Industry Council (PIC) as follows: 

Number of 
Funding Agency Contracts 

Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 14 

Private Industry Council (PIC) 15 

Both MOCD and PIC 12 

Total Contracts 41 * 

* Awarded to 35 nonprofit agencies. 

Another objective of the EO 1000 Program is to find jobs for 
graduate trainees in the two Department of Social Services 
programs entitled Greater Avenues for Independence 
(GAIN) and General Assistance Training Employment 
Services (GATES). 

Comments: 1. The current annual youth job planned placement goals for 

the 35 non-profit agencies (41 total contracts currently funded 
by MOCD and PIC) total 1,712 youth job placements as 
follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



Planned 
Organization Placements 

Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) Contracts 

Careers Abound GO 

Central City Hospitality House 165 

Charity Cultural Services Center 73 

Chinese for Affirmative Action 70 

Chinese Newcomers Service Center 52 
Community Alliance Program for Ex-offenders, Inc. 72 

Horizons Unlimited 160 

Ingleside Community Center 96 

Mission Hiring Hall, Inc. 140 

Mutual Assistance Association Council, Inc. 84 
Oceanview, Merced, Ingleside Community 

Association (OMICA), Inc. 60 

Samoa Mo Samoa, Inc. 72 

Third Baptist Church 54 

Young Community Developers 72 

Subtotal 1,230 

Private Industry Council (PIC) Contracts 

Arriba Juntos 10 

Asian Neighborhood Design 14 

Bay Urban League 8 

Career Resources Development Center 21 

Chinese for Affirmative Action 1 

City College of San Francisco, John Adams 4 

Community Educational Services 22 

Engineering Societies Committee for Manpower 3 

Filipino American Center 12 

Jewish Vocational Service 2 

Renaissance Experience Plus 

San Francisco Vocational Services 4 

Swords to Plowshares 

Vietnamese Youth Development Center 8 
Youth Guidance Center/Improvement Committee 34 

Subtotal 143 

Contracts with both MOCD and PIC 

Chinatown American Cooks School 46 

Chinatown Youth Center 100 

Korean Center, Inc. 5 

Mission Language & Vocational School 139 

Northern California Service League 42 

Potrero Hill Community Development Center _J_ 

Subtotal 339 

Total Planned Job Placements for Youth 1,712 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



2. Mr. Frank Grimmelman of MOCYF advises that the 
MOCYF would find a substantial portion of such added job 
placements with large businesses located in the downtown 
area as the result of the Mayor's EO 1000 Program and other 
employment programs and contacts developed by the Mayor's 
Office! 

3. Mr. Grimmelman indicates that an ordinance to amend 
the Annual Salary Ordinance and a supplemental 
appropriation ordinance regarding the two EO 1000 positions 
are being submitted with a request that they be considered at 
the January 27, 1993 Budget Committee Meeting. Therefore, 
the proposed release of reserve should be continued to that 
meeting to be considered as a companion item to the two 
ordinances. 



Recommendation: 



Continue this item to the January 27, 1993 Budget Committee 
Meeting in order to be considered as a companion item to two 
ordinances regarding the two EO 1000 positions to be 
considered at that meeting. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 

Item lb - File 79-91-2.6 

Department: Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 

Item: Release of Reserved Funds 

Amount: 8100,000 



Source of Funds: 
Description: 



1992 Community Development Block Grant Program 

The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the Mayor to 
apply for, receive and expend the City's 1992 Community 
Development Block Grant entitlement from the U. S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Resolution 
No. 1060-91 (File 79-91-2). At the same time, the Board of 
Supervisors placed $100,000 on reserve, which had been 
allocated for financial compliance audits, pending the 
determination of the final amount needed for such audits. 

The Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 
reports that the Department has exercised the option to extend 
its existing contract with the accounting firm of Calvin Louie, 
CPA, for the provision of technical certified assistance and 
finance and compliance audits for contracts of $25,000 or more 
in connection with the Community Development Block Grant 
(CDBG) subgrantees. The contract extension is the second of 
three such extensions available under the contract agreement. 
The contract extension is for 10 months from January 1, 1993 
(or date of the Controller's certification of availability of funds) 
to October 31, 1993. 

According to the second contract extension, a total of 139 
subgrantee contracts, as listed in the attachment, will undergo 
financial and compliance audits as follows: 



Funding Year 

1990 CDBG Program 

1991 CDBG Program 

1992 CDBG Program 
Total 



Number of 
Subgrantees 

15 

60 

_6i 

139 



Total 

Amount 

of Contracts 

$ 877,368 
6,007,670 
6.511.890 

$13,396,928 



These audits are a requirement of the U. S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, which administers the 
Community Development Block Grant Program. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



Comments: 



1. According to Ms. Carmen Smith of the Human Rights 
Commission, Calvin Louie, CPA, continues to be a HRC 
certified MBE firm. 



2. Billing rates, estimated hours and total fees for the subject 
audits have been identified as follows: 



Position 



Billing 
Rates 



Principal $50.00 

Manager 38.00 

Supervisor/Senior 28.00 

Semi-Senior/Junior 22.00 
Totals 



Estimated 
Hours 

200 
800 

1,500 
800 

3,300 



Total 
Fees 

$10,000 

30,400 

42,000 

17.600 

$100,000 



3. As indicated above, the subject release of funds provides 
for a second contract extension to provide financial and 
compliance audits for 139 CDBG subgrantees. Under the 
previous contract extension, the accounting firm of Calvin 
Louie, CPA completed audits of 76 CDBG subgrantees during 
the 10 month period October 1991 through July 1992 for a total 
cost of $75,000. 

Recommendation; Approve the release of reserved funds in the amount of 
$100,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



Planned 
Organization Placements 

Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) Contracts 

Careers Abound GO 

Central City Hospitality House 165 

Charity Cultural Services Center 73 

Chinese for Affirmative Action 70 

Chinese Newcomers Service Center 52 
Community Alliance Program for Ex-offenders, Inc. 72 

Horizons Unlimited 160 

Ingleside Community Center 96 

Mission Hiring Hall, Inc. 140 

Mutual Assistance Association Council, Inc. 84 
Oceanview, Merced, Ingleside Community 

Association (OMICA), Inc. 60 

Samoa Mo Samoa, Inc. 72 

Third Baptist Church 54 

Young Community Developers 72 

Subtotal 1,230 

Private Industry Council (PIC) Contracts 

Arriba Juntos 10 

Asian Neighborhood Design 14 

Bay Urban League 8 

Career Resources Development Center 21 

Chinese for Affirmative Action 1 

City College of San Francisco, John Adams 4 

Community Educational Services 22 

Engineering Societies Committee for Manpower 3 

Filipino American Center 12 

Jewish Vocational Service 2 

Renaissance Experience Plus 

San Francisco Vocational Services 4 

Swords to Plowshares 

Vietnamese Youth Development Center 8 
Youth Guidance Center/Improvement Committee 34 

Subtotal 143 

Contracts with both MOCD and PIC 

Chinatown American Cooks School 46 

Chinatown Youth Center 100 

Korean Center, Inc. 5 

Mission Language & Vocational School 139 

Northern California Service League 42 

Potrero Hill Community Development Center _7_ 

Subtotal 339 

Total Planned Job Placements for Youth 1,712 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



2. Mr. Frank Grimmelman of MOCYF advises that the 
MOCYF would find a substantial portion of such added job 
placements with large businesses located in the downtown 
area as the result of the Mayor's EO 1000 Program and other 
employment programs and contacts developed by the Mayor's 
Office" 



Recommendation: 



3. Mr. Grimmelman indicates that an ordinance to amend 
the Annual Salary Ordinance and a supplemental 
appropriation ordinance regarding the two EO 1000 positions 
are being submitted with a request that they be considered at 
the January 27, 1993 Budget Committee Meeting. Therefore, 
the proposed release of reserve should be continued to that 
meeting to be considered as a companion item to the two 
ordinances. 

Continue this item to the January 27, 1993 Budget Committee 
Meeting in order to be considered as a companion item to two 
ordinances regarding the two EO 1000 positions to be 
considered at that meeting. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 

Item lb -File 79-91-2.6 



Department: 
Item: 
Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 

Release of Reserved Funds 

$100,000 

1992 Community Development Block Grant Program 

The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the Mayor to 
apply for, receive and expend the City's 1992 Community 
Development Block Grant entitlement from the U. S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Resolution 
No. 1060-91 (File 79-91-2). At the same time, the Board of 
Supervisors placed $100,000 on reserve, which had been 
allocated for financial compliance audits, pending the 
determination of the final amount needed for such audits. 

The Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 
reports that the Department has exercised the option to extend 
its existing contract with the accounting firm of Calvin Louie, 
CPA, for the provision of technical certified assistance and 
finance and compliance audits for contracts of $25,000 or more 
in connection with the Community Development Block Grant 
(CDBG) subgrantees. The contract extension is the second of 
three such extensions available under the contract agreement. 
The contract extension is for 10 months from January 1, 1993 
(or date of the Controller's certification of availability of funds) 
to October 31, 1993. 

According to the second contract extension, a total of 139 
subgrantee contracts, as listed in the attachment, will undergo 
financial and compliance audits as follows: 



Funding Year 

1990 CDBG Program 

1991 CDBG Program 

1992 CDBG Program 
Total 



Number of 
Subgrantees 

15 

eo 

139 



Total 

Amount 
of Contracts 

$ 877,368 
6,007,670 
6.511.890 

$13,396,928 



These audits are a requirement of the U. S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, which administers the 
Community Development Block Grant Program. 



BOARD OF SUPKKVISOHS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Carmen Smith of the Human Rights 

Commission, Calvin Louie, CPA, continues to be a HRC 
certified MBE firm. 

2. Billing rates, estimated hours and total fees for the subject 
audits have been identified as follows: 





Billing 


Estimated 


Total 


Position 


Rates 


Hours 


Fees 


Principal 


$50.00 


200 


$10,000 


Manager 


38.00 


800 


30,400 


Supervisor/Senior 


28.00 


1,500 


42,000 


Semi-Senior/Junior 


22.00 


800 


17.600 


Totals 




3,300 


$100,000 



3. As indicated above, the subject release of funds provides 
for a second contract extension to provide financial and 
compliance audits for 139 CDBG subgrantees. Under the 
previous contract extension, the accounting firm of Calvin 
Louie, CPA completed audits of 76 CDBG subgrantees during 
the 10 month period October 1991 through July 1992 for a total 
cost of $75,000. 

Recommendation: Approve the release of reserved funds in the amount of 
$100,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 

Page 1 of 2 Pages 

j Mtachmcni A - AUDIT MASTER LIST CAL"j "-OUIE 

compliance audits of the following subrccipicnu <>( Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 
according to requirements of il>c federal Department of Housing and Urban Development requircme 



Housing Technical Service 



Public Space Improvements 



AGENCY 

1 A SUN. Inc. 

2 licrnal Heights Couununiry FcundaiKMi 

3 Chinese Coaur.unjry Housing Corporation 

4 Housing Cooscrvatjon auJ Development Corp. 

5 Housing t>cv. St Ncighboihood Prcscrvauoo. Corps 

6 Mission Housing Development Corporation 

7 Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corp. 

1 Asian Neighborhood Design 

2 Foundation for S.F. Architectural Heritage 

1 Friends of Support Services for the Arts 

2 S.F. League of Urban Gar doers 

1 AIDS Legal Referral Panel 

2 Asian American Recovery Services 

3 Audrey L. Smith Development Center. Inc. 
■4 Bayvicw Hunters Point Foundation 

6 CaHEED. Inc. 

7 California Adocatcs for Nursing Home Reform 

8 Careers Abound 

9 Central American Refugee Center 
10 Central City Hospitality House 

9 Charity Cultural Services Center 

10 Chinatown American Coots School 

1 1 Chinatown Youth Center 

12 Chinese Newcomers Services Center 

13 Chinese for Affirmative Action 

Coalition for Immigrant Sl Refugee Rights & Scrvic 

14 Community Alliance Program for Ex -Offenders 

16 FJla Hill Hutch Community Center 
Haight Asbbury Pby Program for Youth 

17 Horizons Unlimited 

13 Hunters Point Com. Youth Park Foundsuoa 

19 Independent Housing Services 

20 Independent Living Resource Center 

21 Innovauvc Housing 

22 Korean Center 

23 Lj Caw de las Madrcs 

24 Is Ka/s Ccnt/olxgal 

25 Lyon Martin Women's Health Services 
20 Minim Community Legal Defense 

23 Mission Education Programs. Inc. 

29 Mission Hiring Hall 

JO Mission language and Vocational School 

i| Mmion Ncighboihood Centers 

12 Mutual Assistance Association Cuuntil'NCIU* 

It Mission Kradui- Clinic 

U N^lhcrn California Service League 

'i OMI Cotnmuniiy Assocuinm 

»h t)MI Pilsiun Commuittii I'cntri 



I990(".nm 


1991 Gmnl 
$193,131 


1992 Grsnt 




$200,000 




$175,000 


$185,000 




$265,000 


$280,000 


SI78.8I8 


$178,818 


$188,818 


S109.011 


$109,011 


$109,011 




$331,629 


$341,629 




$192,000 


$202,000 




$280,000 


$280,000 




$40,000 


$0 




$60,000 


$60,000 




$100,000 


$100,000 




$0 


$31,600 




$50,000 


$50,000 




$73,161 


$73,161 




$292. 82S 


$192,828 




$118,192 


$118,192 




$30,000 


$30,000 




$58,098 


$58,098 




$28,468 


$28,468 




$48,416 


$48,416 


$31,287 


$31,287 


$31,287 




$50,000 


$50,000 


$37,509 


$37,676 


$37,150 


$30,927 


$30,927 


$30,927 


$67,244 


$67,244 


$67,244 




$0 


$50,000 


$35. CCO 


$60,000 


$60,000 




$146,376 


$146,376 




$0 


$25,000 




$61,326 


$61,326 




$172,144 


$189,984 




$130,000 


$160,000 




$30,450 


$30,450 




$90,000 


$90,000 




$42,240 


$58,000 


U2AK 


$42,432 


$52,000 


v-o.r- 


$66,280 


$66,280 




$77,465 


$77,465 




$231,913 


$231,933 




$218,509 


1218.509 




$118,738 


SI 18. MS 




$214. 10) 


$214,109 




$10. UK) 


$40,000 




$2K.V1<> 


528.340 




$106,575 


$106,575 




$50,000 


$50,000 




$35,000 


$35,000 




130.0(10 


$30 OHO 


l,s ■• 


$55,000 


\s-> 000 



Attachment 

Page 2 of 2 Pages 



EcoooQiic Dcvclopa 



Self Employment - Eat. Dcv. 



Aliachmcnl A AUDIT MASTER LIST : CAl 

1 ( 

AGENCY 

38 Sin Francisco Educational Services 

3° Self Help for ihc Elderly 

40 Tenderloin Housing Clm>c 

41 Third Baptist Church 

42 Volunteer Center 

43 Whitney Young Child Dcve-oc^ent Center 

44 Youth Activities - CYO/ Mission Rec. Project 

1 ASIAN. Inc. 

2 Mission Economic Development Association 

3 Urban Economic Development Corporation 

1 A ssocuucm for Children's R_ighu 

2 Career Resources Development Center 

3 Center for Southeast Asian Refugee Resettlement 

4 San Francisco Renaissance 

5 Women's Initiative for Self Employment 





SSO.000 


$50,000 


$45,960 


$48,040 


$50,380 




$87,450 


$56,510 


$26,600 


$46,600 


$16,600 


$30,000 


$30,000 


$30,000 




$77,160 


$77,160 




$61,326 


$61,326 




1191,643 


$192,000 




SO 


$220,500 




$174,530 


$175,000 




$48,618 


$49,000 




no.ooo 


$75,000 


$86,000 


$86,000 


$94,000 




$88,500 


$123,500 




$60,000 


$60,000 


$877,368 


$6,007,670 


$6,511,890 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 

Item 1c - File 133-92-2.3 

Department 



Item: 



Amount: 



Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 
Solid Waste Management Program 

Release of reserved funds for market research and 
marketing and advertising services. 



Source of Funds: 
Description: 



$241,000 

Refuse Collection and Disposal Fees Impound Account 

During its review of the Solid Waste Management Program's 
budget for fiscal year 1992-93, the Board of Supervisors reserved 
$241,000 of the Professional Services budget for market 
research and marketing and advertising services pending 
selection of the contractors and identification of hours, hourly 
rates and MBE/WBE status. 

The Solid Waste Management Program sent notices of 
availability of requests for proposals to approximately 500 
advertising and public relations firms in the San Francisco 
Bay Area. Twenty of these firms submitted proposals that 
were reviewed by a panel of public outreach coordinators and 
public relations professionals who selected the firm of Barnes 
Clarke, Inc., a WBE. Barnes Clarke, Inc. will be utilizing 
three subcontractors including Wilson Chang 
Communications (a MBE firm), Consumer Action (a non- 
profit organization) and Wright Design Group (a for profit 
firm that is not a MBE/WBE firm). 

According to the Solid Waste Management Program, market 
research and marketing and advertising services will be 
purchased on an as-needed basis. The Solid Waste 
Management Program requests that this item be continued 
in order to finalize the determinations of the hours of services 
required. 

Recommendation: Continue this item as requested by the department. 



Comment: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20. 1993 

Item Id -File 133-92-2.4 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 
Solid Waste Management Program 

Release of reserved funds for printing of a student recycling 
handbook 

$4,500 

Refuse Collection and Disposal Fees Impound Account 

During its review of the Solid Waste Management Program's 
budget for fiscal year 1992-93, the Board of Supervisors reserved 
$4,500 for the printing of a student recycling handbook pending 
selection of the contractor and identification of hours, hourly 
rates and MBE/WBE status. 

The student recycling handbook requires printing 1,500 copies 
of a 16 page booklet with a pocket on the inside of the back cover 
with three forms to be inserted in the pocket. 

Pursuant to a Purchase Order from the Solid Waste 
Management Program to the Purchaser, the Purchaser's 
Office contacted four printing firms on their list of qualified 
firms to obtain bids on the project. Bids were requested for the 
project as a whole and therefore, details as to hours and hourly 
rates do not apply. Color Copy Printing was selected as the 
lowest bidder with a bid of $4,557. Color Copy Printing is not a 
WBE or a MBE. 

Comment: The Solid Waste Management Program indicates that funding 

for the $57 by which the low bid of $4,557 exceeds the proposed 
release of reserve of $4,500 will come from savings in other 
accounts in the Solid Waste Management Program budget. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $4,500 as requested. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 

Item le - File 146-92-26.2 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 
AIDS Office 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $99,339, for the 
provision of street-based outreach intervention services to 
high-risk youth in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood. 

$99,339 

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the DPH to 
accept and expend a continuation grant in the amount of 
$470,440 (File 146-92-26.1). These funds were to be used for a 
program aimed at evaluating and enhancing HrV/AIDS 
prevention and street-based outreach programs that serve 
youth in high-risk situations, such as runaways, homeless 
youth and youth who are intravenous drug users. The 
program is divided into two phases. The first phase involves 
assessing (1) the location and size of the target population, (2) 
the current outreach coverage of specific geographic areas 
and the costs associated with that coverage and (3) the 
current modes of evaluation. The second phase entails 
testing the effectiveness of a specially designed street-based 
outreach intervention program. 

Of the total $470,440 grant, $109,159 was placed on reserve 
pending (1) the DPH's selection of a contractor to provide the 
above noted street-based outreach intervention services and 
(2) information regarding the hours, rates and the MBEAVBE 
status of the contractor. 

The DPH reports that the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinics Inc., 
a non-profit agency, has been selected, through the 
Department's competitive bid process, to provide the street- 
based outreach intervention services to high-risk youth in the 
Haight-Ashbury neighborhood. Specific services will include 
bleach and condom distribution, high-risk counseling of 
approximately 1,050 youth and the provision of skill-building 
and self-esteem educational sessions to approximately 300 of 
the youth who receive high-risk counseling. The DPH advises 
that bleach is used to disinfect needles used by intravenous 
drug abusers. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



Budget Start-up Costs (1.5 months - 2/15/93 to 4/193) 

Personnel: 

Program Manager (0.08) $2,000 

Program Coordinator (0.05 FTE) 1,688 

Fringe Benefits 978 



Subtotal-Personnel 




$4,666 


Operating Expenses: 






Rent ($2,000 first and last month 






rent plus $1,000 security deposit) 


$3,000 




Utilities 


313 




Office Supplies 


424 




Printing and Reproduction 


150 




Telephone Installation 


300 




Travel (CDC meetings - Atlanta) 






Round Trip Ticket ($900 x 2 persons 






x 2 trips - purchased without 






advance notice) 


3,600 




Lodging ($100 per night x 6 nights 






x 2 trips) 


1,200 




Per Diem ($15 per day x 6 nights 






x 2 persons x 2 trips) 


360 




Consultants 


4,000 




Subtotal-Operating Expenses 




13,347 


Equipment: 






Computer/Printer 


$3,000 




Office Furniture 


2,000 




Subtotal-Equipment 




5,000 


Total Direct Costs 




$23,013 


Administrative Overhead (9% of direct costs) 


2,072 


Total Start-up Costs 




$25,085 


On-fifoincr Oueratinir Costs (6 months - 4/2/93 to 9/29/93) 



Personnel: 

Program Administrator (0.5 FTE) $14,500 
Outreach Workers (1.0 FTE total) 26,000 

Fringe Benefits 10.733 

Subtotal-Personnel $51,233 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 

Operating Expenses: 

Rent $6,000 
Utilities 1,290 
Office Supplies 1,100 
Printing and Reproduction 300 
Travel (CDC meeting - Atlanta) 
Round Trip Ticket ($510 x 1 person- 
purchased with advanced notice) 510 
Lodging ($100 per night x 6 nights) 600 
Per Diem ($15 per day x 6 nights) 90 
Consultants 3,000 
Condoms/Lubricant 3,000 
Bleach 1.000 

Subtotal-Operating Expenses $16,890 

Total Direct Costs $68,123 

Administrative Overhead (9% of direct costs) 6.131 

Total On-going Operating Costs $74,254 

Total Contract $99,339 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 

Item 2 - File 30-93-1 



Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Item: Resolution authorizing the adoption of the County Description 

of the Proposed expenditure of California Healthcare for 
Indigents Program (CHIP) funds for fiscal year 1992-93, and 
that the Chairperson or duly authorized representative of the 
Board of Supervisors can certify the County description of the 
proposed expenditure of CHIP funds for fiscal year 1992-93. 

Description: In October of 1989, the DPH began its implementation of 

State AB 75, the Proposition 99/Tobacco Tax Bill. State AB75 
created the California Healthcare for Indigents Program 
(CHIP) to provide counties with funds for the provision and 
expansion of health care services to medically indigent adults. 

Local CHIP funds are used to reimburse participating county 
hospitals, and non-county hospitals, for inpatient, outpatient 
and emergency services and participating private physicians 
for emergency, obstetric and pediatric services, provided to 
indigent persons. The DPH advises that State regulations 
require that the City submit to the State, on an annual basis, a 
description of the proposed expenditure of the CHIP funds. The 
DPH reports that for FY 1992-93, the City will receive an 
allocation totaling $10,782,909 in CHIP funds as follows: 



County Hospitals 
Non-County Hospitals 
Physician Services 
Other Health Services 
Total 



$6,480,989 

736,622 

831,538 

2.733.760 

$10,782,909 



San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) has been designated 
as the City's recipient of those CHIP funds earmarked for 
county hospitals. For FY 1992-93, the total amount available 
for expenditure by SFGH is $6,504,519 ($6,480,989 plus 
$23,530 from prior year interest). Under the DPH's proposed 
expenditure plan for these funds, $6,175,666 or 94.9 percent 
would be allocated to pay for indigent health care services and 
$328,853 or 5.1 percent would be used to pay for 
administrative costs directly related to the CHIP program. 

The DPH reports that under the Department's proposed 
expenditure plan 50 percent or $368,311 of the CHIP non- 
county hospital funds, totaling $736,622, will be allocated to 
the City's ten local non-county hospitals on the basis of a 
formula. The remaining 50 percent of these funds or $368,311 
will be allocated by DPH under a discretionary category. The 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
14 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



formula allocation is based on Office of Statewide Health 
Planning and Development (OSHPD) uncompensated health 
care data, collected from all non-county hospitals Statewide. 
Under State regulations all local non-county hospitals are 
entitled to a share of the formula allocation based on each 
hospitals level of uncompensated health care costs. 

The 50 percent balance of $368,311 in CHIP discretionary 
funds are not required by State regulations to be allocated to 
all local non-county hospitals. Therefore, the DPH has the 
discretion to allocate these funds to one or more non-county 
hospitals for the provision of health care services to indigent 
persons, as it deems appropriate. However, DPH intends to 
allocate the $368,311 plus $66,436 in prior year interest 
totaling $434,747, to reimburse all ten non-county hospitals 
and to pay for associated costs as follows: 

Non-county Hospitals $327,797 
Professional Services Contract: 

*Medicus Systems Corporation 97,571 

DPH Administrative Costs 9.379 

Total $434,747 

* See Comment 1 below 

In accordance with State regulations, the DPH has established 
an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) account and a New 
Contracts Physician Services account for the receipt and 
deposit of the CHIP physician services funds. Of the $831,538 
allocated for physician services for FY 1992-93, $719,538 or 87 
percent would be deposited to the EMS account and $112,000 
or 13 percent would be deposited to the New Contracts 
Physician Services account. 

DPH reports that the total amount available in the EMS 
account for FY 1992-93 is $938,134 ($719,538 plus $218,596 in 
prior year interest). Under the DPH's proposed expenditure 
plan the $938,134 would be expended as follows: 

Physician Services $647,583 
Professional Contract Services 

Medicus Systems Corporation 259,808 

DPH Administrative Costs 30.743 

Total $938,134 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



Comments: 



The DPH advises that the total amount available in the New 
Contracts Physician Services account is $123,200 ($112,000 
plus $11,200 in prior year interest). DPH's proposed 
expenditure plan provides for the expenditure of the $123,200, 
as follows: 



Child Health and Disability 
Prevention Treatment Services 
(and other eligible physician 
services) 

Professional Contract Services 
Medicus Systems Corporation 

DPH Administrative Costs 

Total 



$100,800 

14,119 

8.281 
$123,200 



According to DPH, the total amount available under the CHD? 
Other Health Services category for FY 1992-93 is $2,741,670 
($2,733,760 plus $7,910 in prior year interest). Under DPH's 
proposed expenditure plan, $2,603,061 or 95 percent of the 
$2,741,670 would be used to pay for inpatient, outpatient and 
emergency care services to indigent patients at SFGH. The 
remaining $138,609 or 5 percent would pay for SFGH and 
DPH, Central Administration Office administrative costs 
associated with the CHIP program. 

1. The DPH advises that it would continue to contract with 
Medicus Systems Corporation for the provision of fiscal 
intermediary services for the participating non-county 
hospitals and private physicians. These services include the 
receipt, processing and payment of claims in connection with 
the CHIP program. In addition to the fiscal intermediary 
services, Medicus Systems would also continue to be 
responsible for provider relations, information dissemination 
and data reporting, and would assist the DPH in the CHIP 
program management. 

2. Mr. Jeff Leong of the DPH reports that the reason the 
proposed expenditure plan is being submitted to the Board of 
Supervisors at this time instead of at the beginning of the 
fiscal year is because the State did not submit guidelines to 
DPH for the preparation of the proposed expenditure plan until 
September of 1992. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 

Item 3 - File 97-92-67 

Note: This item was continued at the Finance Committee meeting of January 
13, 1992. 

Department: Board of Supervisors 

Item: Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Section 

8.37 thereto, authorizing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 
to collect fees to defray the cost of mailing and providing 
copies of documents relating to the business of the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would allow the Clerk of the Board of 

Supervisors to charge and collect fees to defray the cost of the 
issuance of documents and services. The Budget Analyst's 
memo dated June 3, 1992, included recommendations on the 
amount of these fees based upon cost considerations and 
comparable fees charged by other California counties. Many 
of these recommended fees by the Budget Analyst have been 
incorporated into the proposed ordinance. The proposed 
ordinance does not specify whether these fees would be 
charged specifically to the public or whether the fees would 
also be charged to City departments. 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the Clerk of the 
Board of Supervisors to waive, partially or wholly, any of the 
fees authorized when exigent circumstances arise, such as, 
but not limited to the need to work cooperatively with other 
governmental agencies, or the inability of the requesting 
person to pay for the requested service. 

The proposed fees and the projected new revenues that would 
be generated by the proposed ordinance (based on information 
gathered by the Clerk of the Board's Office on weekly 
activities provided to the public) are as follows: 



Item 



Agenda-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(weekly mailing, annual subscription) 

Agenda-Budget Committee (weekly mailing, 
annual subscription) 

Agenda-Legislative Committee Meetings 
(regular mailing, annual subscription) 



Proposed 
Fee 


Current 
Level of 
Activitv 

70 


Estimated 

Annual 

Revenues 


$120.00 


$8,400 


70.00 


500 


35,000 


35.00 


1,500 


52,500 



BOARD OF ST TPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



Item 



Minutes-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(annual subscription) 

Minutes-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(mailing, per copy) 

Legislative packets-meeting of the Board of 
Supervisors (weekly mailing, annual 
subscription) 

Legislative packet-meeting of the Board of 
Supervisors (each set) 

Appeal Filing Conditional Use Permit (per 
filing) 

Late Filing-Application for Temporary Street 
Closure Denial (per filing) 

Appeal Filing-Temporary Street Closure (per 
filing) 

Certification of Documents (per document) 

Photocopies of Pages* 
First Page 
Each Additional Page 

Total Estimated Annual Revenues 



Proposed 
Fee 



$240.00 
3.00 

290.00 

4.00 

275.00 

120.00 

58.00 
1.75 



.25 
.10 



Current 
Level of 
Activity 



30 



100 



35 



50 



60 

8 
360 



5,208 
10,417 



Estimated 

Annual 

Revenues 



$7,200 



300 

10,150 
200 

2,475 

7,200 

464 
630 



1,302 
1.042 

$126363 



* The total number of estimated annual occurrences for photocopying pages is 
15,625. The amount of estimated revenues assumes each document copied is 
three pages in length. Assuming each document copied on average is four pages 
in length, then estimated annual revenues would be $2,149. 

Comments: 1. As noted above, the estimated revenues are based upon 

current weekly activities for the public provided by the Deputy 
Clerks of the Board. However, if the Clerk of the Board begins 
charging for these services, it is likely that the current level 
of activities for the public would decrease, and therefore the 
total estimated revenues would also decrease. The level of 
activities for the public, and the amount of fees which would 
be waived for these services, cannot be determined at this 
time. The total estimated $126,863 in revenues detailed above 
are the maximum revenues which would be generated from 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



the proposed ordinance based on current activity levels. Mr. 
John Taylor, Clerk of the Board reports that there would be a 
substantial decrease in the level of activities if the Clerk of the 
Board charged for these services. Mr. Taylor estimates that 
the revised estimates would be as follows: 



Revised 
Revised Estimated 
Proposed Estimated Annual 
Fee Quantity Revenues 



Item 



Agenda-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(weekly mailing, annual subscription) 

Agenda-Budget Committee (weekly mailing, 
annual subscription) 

Agenda-Legislative Committee Meetings 
(regular mailing, annual subscription) 

Minutes-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(annual subscription) 

Minutes-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(mailing, per copy) 

Legislative packets-meeting of the Board of 
Supervisors (weekly mailing, annual 
subscription) 

Legislative packet-meeting of the Board of 
Supervisors (each set) 

Appeal Filing Conditional Use Permit (per 
filing) 

Late Filing-Application for Temporary Street 
Closure Denial (per filing) 

Appeal Filing-Temporary Street Closure (per 
filing) 

Certification of Documents (per document) 

Photocopies of Pages* 
First Page 
Each Additional Page 

Total Revised Estimated Annual Revenues 



$120.00 



70.00 



35.00 



240.00 



3.00 



290.00 



4.00 



25 



130 



130 



10 



50 



10 



15 



$3,000 

9,100 

4,550 

2,400 

150 

2,900 

eo 



!75.00 


9 


2,475 


20.00 


eo 


7,200 


58.00 


8 


464 


1.75 


100 


175 


.25 


750 


188 


.10 


1,250 


m 



$32,787 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



Whether or not there would be a substantial decrease in the 
level of activities if the Clerk of the Board begins charging for 
these services cannot be determined at this time. 

2. The Attachment to this report provides a comparison of 
the fees for the services charged by sixteen California 
counties. The fees charged by these other counties were the 
basis for the Budget Analyst's recommendations on the 
amount of fees to charge, many of which are incorporated 
into the proposed ordinance. As noted on the Attachment, 
each county surveyed, including all of the Bay area counties, 
already charges fees for services provided by the Clerk of the 
Board's Office. 

3. Enterprise fund departments such as the Airport, Port 
and Hetch Hetchy, reimburse the General Fund for 
administrative costs through the City's Cost Allocation Plan. 
According to the State Government Code, general 
government costs, such as costs incurred by the Clerk of the 
Board, may not be recovered from the public through the Cost 
Allocation Plan. The proposed ordinance would allow the 
Clerk of the Board to defray these costs which cannot 
currently be recovered under the City's Cost Allocation Plan. 
According to Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office, the 
annual revenues would be treated as Board of Supervisors 
departmental revenues of the City's General Fund. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 















Attachment 














page 1 of 2 




Agenda Agenda 
Full Board Committees 


•Proceedings 


Copies of 
•Packets 


Ordinances 


Research 


Alameda 


SH0/yr 
NPO:$55/yr 


N/A 


$1.50/1 st pg 
500/add'l pp 


$1.50/1 st pg 
500/add'l pp 


$1.50/1stpg 
500/ add'l pp 


$3.50/15 min 


Alpine 


$10/yr 


N/A 


$25/yr 


25e7pg 


25epg 


$5/iile 


Colusa 


SASE 


SASE 


SASE 


N/C 


50e/pg 


N/C 


Humboldt 


S22.80/6 mos 
S45.60/yr 


N/A 


$22.80/6 mos 
$45.60/yr 


30/pg 


1 00/pg 


N/C 


Los Angeles SASE 


N/A 


N/C 


N/C 


1 00/pg 


$1 1/15 min 


Madera 


$24/yr 
$2/mo 


N/A 


$1/1stpg 

20<J/add'l pp 


N/C 


N/C 


N/C 


Marin 


$35/yr, general 
(N/C: press, gov't) 


N/A 


$63/yr, inc. agenda 
(N/C: press, gov't) 


N/C (available 
to press only) 


250/pg 


$6.40/15 min 


Mendocino 


N/C 


N/A 


$2/set or 
250/pg 


100/pg 


250/pg, gen'l 
1 00/pg, press 


N/C 


Monterey 


$24/yr, general 

(N/C: press, gov't, 

single requests) 


N/A 


$24/yr, general 


N/C 


N/C 


N/C 



Napa 



$50/yr 



N/A 



$125/yr 



$600/yr 20£/pg Actual staff 

$1/pg from microfilm service cost 



Riverside 


SASE 


N/C 


N/C 


N/A 


■ 1 0C/pg 

500/research 


$5/file 

minimum 


Sacramento 


$138/yr 


N/A 


$1.50/1 st pg 

200/add'l pp 


N/C 


$1.50/1stpg 
20C/add'l pp 


$5/15 min 


San Diego 


$10/yr 


N/A 


$25/yr 


N/A 


25c/pg 


$5/file 


San Mateo 


$50/yr 


N/A 


N/C 


N/A 


20e/pg 


N/C 


Santa Clara 


N/C 


N/C 


N/C 


N/A 


N/C 


N/C 


Sierra 


$30/yr 


N/A 


$70/yr 


50e/pg 


25c/pg 


N/C 



Legend: N/C: no charge; SASE: self-addressed stamped envelope; N/A: not applicable (service not provided); NPO: 
non-profit organization. 

21 



Attachment 
page 2 of 2 





Copies of Tape 
Recordinos' 


Planning 
Appeals 


letter & legal sized 
Photocopies 


Notes 


Alameda 


$40/hr 

tape: $5 


N/C 


$1.50/1 st page 
500/add'l pp 




Alpine 


$10 


$50 


25£/pg 




Colusa 


iape: S3.00 


$250 


50e/add'l pp 


No fees charged to any 
government representative 


Humboldt 


- $22/hr 
tape: $1 .50 


N/C 


100/pg 




Los Angeles 


$8 vv/o tape 
$9 with tape 


400/sq ft N/C 
$8 svc. chg. 




Madera 


N/A 


N/C 


$1/1st pg; 200/add't pp 




Marin 


$10 
tape: $3.50 


N/C 


250/pg 




Mendocino 


Minimum: $10 


$140 


250 public documents 
500 private documents 




Monterey 


$5 


$50 


$1/1stpg; 500/add'l pp 




Napa 


$15 


N/C 


200/pg 




Riverside 


$12.50 
including tape 


$415 


100/pg 
150/double-sided 


Riverside has not increased its 
fees in ten years. 


Sacramento 


$6.50 
tape: $3.50 


$1,871 


$1 . 50/1 st copy 

300/add'l identical copies 





San Diego 



San Mateo 



$10 



$3 
tape: $2 



$500 



N/C 



250/pg 



200/pg 



Santa Clara N/C $305 $1 .70 fee + 5e/pg 

Sierra $10/hr $200 25e/pg 

'Tape not included unless otherwise noted 



San Diego is currently 
updating its fee schedule 






Legend: N/C: no charge: SASE: self-addressed stamped envelope; N/A: not applicable (service not provided); NPO: 
non-profit organization. 



22 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 

Item 4 - File 170-93-1 



Item: 



Amount: 
Description: 



Ordinance providing for the approval and execution and 
delivery by officers of the City and County of San Francisco of 
an Equipment Lease Supplement No. 2 between the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation, as Lessor, and the City and 
County of San Francisco, as Lessee, with respect to 
equipment to be used for City purposes and the related 
Certificate of Approval; providing for reimbursement to the 
City of certain City expenditures prior to the issuance of lease 
revenue bonds and approving the issuance of lease revenue 
bonds by said non-profit corporation; providing that said 
bonds shall be subject to the certification of the Controller of 
the City and County of San Francisco prior to the sale of said 
bonds; and providing for the execution of documents in 
connection therewith and ratifying previous actions taken in 
connection therewith. 

Not to exceed $10 million. 

In June, 1990, San Francisco voters approved Proposition C, 
a Charter amendment which authorized the Board of 
Supervisors to authorize and approve the lease-financing of 
equipment purchases for the City through a non-profit 
corporation, the San Francisco Finance Corporation. The 
equipment leased by the City is purchased by the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation with the proceeds of Lease 
Revenue Bonds. 

Pursuant to Proposition C, the total outstanding indebtedness 
of the San Francisco Finance Corporation may not exceed a 
principal amount of $20 million at any given time beginning 
in 1990-91, with the limit increased by 5 percent in each 
subsequent fiscal year. The maximum amount of authorized 
outstanding indebtedness in 1992-93 will be $22,050,000. 

Interest rates on lease-revenue bonds issued by non-profit 
corporations are generally lower than on other financing 
instruments, resulting in lower lease-purchase costs to the 
City, because of the tax-exempt status of investments in non- 
profit corporations. Proposition C requires that the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation may not issue Lease Revenue 
Bonds for equipment purchases unless the Controller 
certifies that the interest costs to the City will be lower 
through the San Francisco Finance Corporation than 
through other financing instruments. 

In fiscal year 1990-91 the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
issuance by the San Francisco Finance Corporation of 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



Comments: 



$7,304,707 in Lease Revenue Bonds to finance the purchase of 
equipment, and authorized the execution of an Equipment 
Lease between the City and the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation for the purchased equipment. In 1991-92, the 
Board of Supervisors approved the issuance of not more than 
an additional $10 million in lease revenue bonds (Series 
1992A) for equipment purchases, and authorized the 
approval of an Equipment Lease Supplement No. 1 between 
the City and the San Francisco Finance Corporation for the 
lease-purchase of equipment obtained with the Series 1992A 
revenue bond proceeds. 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the issuance of 
additional lease revenue bonds in fiscal year 1992-93 by the 
San Francisco Finance Corporation in an amount not to 
exceed $10 million, provided that the Controller certifies that 
interest costs to the City under the proposed bond issuance 
would be lower than through other financing sources. The 
proposed ordinance would also authorize an Equipment 
Lease Supplement No. 2 between the City and the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation for the City's lease purchase 
of additional equipment purchased with new bond revenues. 

In addition, the proposed ordinance provides for 
reimbursement to the City of certain expenditures (see 
Comment 13) prior to the issuance of the proposed additional 
lease revenue bonds, provides for the execution of documents 
needed to implement the proposed ordinance, and ratifies 
actions previously taken. 

The annual budgets of City departments must include the 
amount of the City's annual lease purchase payments 
(including principal and interest) for equipment procured 
through the San Francisco Finance Corporation. Since these 
payments are required under the terms of the lease-purchase 
agreement with the San Francisco Finance Corporation, the 
annual payments become fixed costs of City departments for 
a period of several years, once the equipment has been 
procured, until the cost of the equipment is paid in full by the 
City. 

1. As previously noted, the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation was authorized to issue $7,304,707 in 1990-91 and 
up to $10 million in 1991-92 in Lease Purchase Revenue bonds 
to procure equipment on behalf of the City. According to the 
Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. Rudy Nothenberg, the 
actual amount of Lease Purchase Revenue bonds issued by 
the San Francisco Finance Corporation, the amounts which 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



have been repaid, and the current outstanding indebtedness 
of the San Francisco Finance Corporation are as follows: 

Description Amount 



Series 1991A 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued 
Repayment to date 
Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1991A: 


$7,020,000 
(2.060.000) 


$4,960,000 


Series 1992A 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued 
Repayment to date 
Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1992A: 


$5,555,000 
(365.000) 


5.190.000 


Total Current Outstanding Indebtedness 




$10,150,000 



2. Proposition C established limits on the total outstanding 
indebtedness of the San Francisco Finance Corporation. The 
Charter amendment states that total indebtedness was 
limited to $20 million, to be "increased by 5 percent each fiscal 
year following approval of this subsection." The Charter 
amendment was approved in June, 1990. 

Mr. Fred Weiner of the CAO's Office states that the City has 
adopted a conservative interpretation of the Charter 
amendment by regarding $20 million as the debt limit for 
1990-91, without the 5 percent increase which was allowed 
"in the first fiscal year" following enactment of Proposition C 
in June, 1990. On this basis, the limit on the outstanding debt 
capacity for 1992-93 is $22,050,000 and, under Proposition C, 
the San Francisco Finance Corporation can issue no more 
than $11.9 million in lease purchase revenue bonds in 1992-93 
($22,050,00 current debt limit less $10,150,000 current 
outstanding debt). 

As previously noted, the proposed ordinance would authorize 
the issuance of new revenue bonds in 1992-93 in an amount 
not to exceed $10 million, which is within the San Francisco 
Finance Corporation's current debt capacity under 
Proposition C of $11.9 million. If a total of $10 million in new 
revenue bonds is actually issued in 1992-93, the debt capacity 
for 1993-94 will be $3,002,500 ($1.9 million remaining debt 
capacity in 1992-93 plus $1,102,500 in new debt capacity for 
1993-94, based on a 5 percent increase from $22,050,000 to 
$23,152,500). 

3. Mr. Nothenberg reports that approximately $10.6 million 
in equipment was approved for lease financing by the Mayor 
and the Board of Supervisors in the 1992-93 budget. This 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



amount exceeds by $600,000 the proposed $10 million in new 
revenue bonds which would be authorized under the 
proposed ordinance. 

A list prepared by the CAO's Office of the equipment 
purchases requested by City departments for 1992-93, at a 
total cost of $11,037,082, is attached to this report. 
"Attachment A" lists proposed equipment purchases 
totalling $9,381,778 for equipment valued at more than 
$100,000, or which could not be cost-effectively financed 
through other means, according to the CAO's Office. 
"Attachment B" reflects proposed equipment purchases of 
$933,974 for equipment valued between $10,000 and $100,000. 
"Attachment C" reflects proposed purchases of $721,330 for 
equipment valued at less than $10,000. 

The financing term for the lease-purchase of this equipment 
varies from 3 to 7 years. 

4. Mr. Nothenberg advises that, in his opinion, City 
departments have requested equipment lease-purchases by 
the City which are inappropriate for this type of financing, 
since the San Francisco Finance Corporation was established 
to finance "major" equipment lease purchases by City 
departments. The Budget Analyst strongly concurs and 
notes that lease-purchases of equipment should be limited to 
items which are appropriately financed over a period of 3 to 7 
years, based on the expected useful life of the equipment, or 
for which funds are unavailable for outright purchase 
because the cost of the equipment is prohibitively expensive. 

Mr. Nothenberg states that only the equipment listed on 
Attachment A, with a total value of $9,381,778, (or $618,222 
less than the $10 million proposed maximum amount of the 
bond issue) is appropriate for lease-financing through the 
San Francisco Finance Corporation. 

Ms. Laura Wagner-Lockwood of the CAO's Office states that, 
although the total cost of the equipment listed on Attachment 
A is only $9,381,778, a bond issue of up to $10 million will still 
be needed to purchase the equipment, because: 1) the actual 
equipment costs will be determined through competitive 
bidding, which could increase total expenditures above the 
estimated $9,381,778; and, 2) the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation is required to maintain a reserve balance of 
approximately 10 percent of the bond proceeds. 

5. Attachment A lists 40 General Fleet Vehicles which would 
be purchased on behalf of the City at a total cost of $400,000, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



whereas the approved 1992-93 budget authorizes only 30 
General Fleet vehicles to be purchased at a maximum cost of 
$402,000. Mr. Weiner, of the CAO's Office, and Mr. Ara 
Minasian of the Purchasing Department attribute this 
discrepancy to a typographical error in the number of 
vehicles listed on Attachment A, which should be amended 
from "40" to "30." 

6. Mr. Nothenberg reports that he will propose that the 
equipment listed on Attachment B, valued at $933,974, be 
financed through a new "Master Vendor Lease Financing 
Program," which would involve obtaining a line of credit 
from a bank or other financial institution. Once established, 
departments would then be allowed to access this credit line 
to purchase these smaller equipment items if previously 
authorized in the budget, according to Mr. Nothenberg. 

Mr. Nothenberg reports that he is working with the City 
Attorney, the Controller, and the Mayor's Office to develop 
such a proposal, which would then be subject to separate 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

7. Mr. Nothenberg states that, in his opinion, it is not 
"economically prudent or practically feasible" to lease- 
finance the equipment items listed on Attachment C, each of 
which is valued at less than $10,000. Mr. Nothenberg 
recommends that these items not be lease-financed but 
purchased outright in the 1993-94 budget. 

Attachment C includes 247 low-cost items valued at less than 
$10,000, including several file cabinets and office chairs at a 
unit cost of less than $250 . The Budget Analyst strongly 
concurs with the Chief Administrative Office that these items 
are inappropriate for lease-financing. 

8. The use of lease-financing is equivalent to borrowing 
funds, with resultant interest costs, to pay for the City's 
smaller type equipment items which should instead be fully 
reflected in annual departmental budget requests. Since 
such financing also requires fixed, mandatory lease 
payments by City departments over several years, the 
extensive use of lease-purchases "locks in" departmental 
expenditures for future years. This will adversely affect the 
City by limiting discretion and constraining the allocation of 
City funds in future years. 

9. The actual interest costs to the City of the proposed 1992-93 
equipment lease-purchases cannot be determined precisely, 
since the interest rate will depend on the prices offered for the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



bonds when the bonds are offered for sale. Interest costs will 
also vary for each item based on the number of years in the 
repayment period. 

However, Ms. Wagner-Lockwood estimates that, if 1993 Lease 
Revenue Bonds are sold in a principal amount of $9.05 
million (based on the CAO's current estimate of the actual 
equipment purchases which would be made with the bond 
proceeds), at an estimated annual interest rate of 4.2 percent 
(based on current market rates for short-term bonds), then, 
based on the expected repayment periods, the City's total 
principal and interest costs would be $10.18 million over the 
life of the bonds. Based on these estimates, the City's total 
interest costs over the life of the bonds would be $1.13 million 
($10.13 million estimated total repayment cost less $9.05 
million estimated original principal amount). 

10. Ms. Wagner-Lockwood estimates that the City's total 1993- 
94 payments to the San Francisco Finance Corporation for 
the proposed new equipment (including principal and 
interest) will be approximately $2.25 million. 

11. Because of the interest costs necessarily associated with 
lease-purchases and the need to budget lease-purchase 
payments over several years, the Budget Analyst believes 
that, to the maximum extent possible , the full cost of all 
equipment purchases should be incorporated into the annual 
operating budgets of City departments, rather than extended 
over a financing period of 3 to 7 years through lease 
purchasing arrangements. 

12. Mr. Weiner states that the purchase price of the proposed 
equipment was detailed in 1992-93 departmental budgets for 
equipment purchases, in order to identify the proposed 
equipment purchases, but that departmental budgets were 
also reduced by an equivalent amount. Therefore, funds are 
not included in the City's approved 1992-93 budget for 
expenditures (either the purchase or leasing costs) for the 
proposed new equipment. 

Mr. Weiner states that lease purchase payments for the new 
equipment will not be required in the current 1992-93 fiscal 
year, since the initial payments for new equipment are not 
made until approximately six months after the new 
equipment is purchased by the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation and leased to the City. In addition, the 1993 
revenue bonds must be issued before the equipment can be 
purchased by the San Francisco Finance Corporation. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 

13. The proposed resolution provides for reimbursement by 
the San Francisco Finance Corporation of certain City 
expenditures. Mr. Weiner indicates that, under this 
provision, the City could receive reimbursement for any 
equipment which the City purchases before the proposed 1993 
lease revenue bonds are sold. Subsequent to this 
reimbursement, the equipment would belong to the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation and could also be leased to 
the City. 

14. The City would take ownership of the proposed equipment 
upon repayment of principal and interest costs to the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation, according to the repayment 
terms specified in the Equipment Lease Supplement No. 2, 
which the CAO would be authorized to execute under the 
proposed ordinance. As previously noted, the repayment 
period for the proposed equipment varies from 3 to 7 years. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend Attachment A, which was submitted with the 
proposed ordinance and is on file with the Clerk of the Board, 
by amending the number of General Fleet vehicles for the 
Purchasing Department from 40 to 30. 

2. Approve the proposed ordinance, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Attachment A 

Equipment Approved in FY 1992-93 Budget 
Proposed to be Leased Financed through: 

City and County of San Francisco Finance Corporation 









UNIT 


TOTAL 


FINANCING 


DEPARTMENT 


EQUIPMENT 


COUNT 


COST 


COSTS 


TERM 


CONTROLLER 


ROLL PAPER MACHINE 


1 


125,000 


125,000 


3 


DPW/SC&UF 


MECHANICAL SWEEPER 


1 


125,000 


125,000 


4 


DPW/SC&UF 


PASSENGER VANS 


10 


18,803 


188,030 


3 


FIRE 


PUMPER TRUCK 


4 


228,170 


912,680 


7 


FIRE 


AERIAL TRUCK 


2 


448,225 


896,450 


7 


POLICE 


SOLO MOTORCYCLES 


10 


7,688 


76,880 * 


5 


POLICE 


TRAIL MOTORBIKES 


13 


4^00 


54,600 » 


3 


POLICE 


PATROL WAGONS & OUTFIT 


7 


23261 


162,827 


4 


POLICE 


PIC RADIOS 


225 


2,079 


467,775 


5 


POLICE 


POLICE CARS 


116 


17,846 


2,070,158 


3 


PURCHASING 


OCR - BARCODER 


1 


250,000 


250,000 


5 


PURCHASING 


VEHICLES - GENERAL FLEET 


40 


10,000 


400,000 


5 


SPGH 


INPATIENT BEDS 


126 


6,910 


870,710 


5 


SFGH 


AMBULANCES 


5 


80,000 


400,000 


4 


SFGH 


OR LIGHTS 


6 


25,000 


150,000 


4 


SFGH 


SPECIALTY BEDS 


13 


10,783 


140,175 


5 


SFGH 


ENDOSCOPIC COLOR VI 


3 


69.992 


209,976 


5 


SFGH 


ENDOSCOPIC UTLTASONIC 


1 


133,021 


133,021 


5 


SFGH 


ULTRASOUND UPGRADE 


2 


130,430 


260,860 


5 


SFGH 


M\MMO PROCESSOR 


2 


80,418 


160,835 


5 


SFGH 


CTUNTT 


1 


1,326,801 


1,326,801 


4 



TOTAL 



589 3,123,627 9,381,778 



* While these items do not meet threshold of $100,000 aggregrate cost, due 
to the high risk nature of the items, it was determined they could not be 
cost-effectively financed in any other fashion. 



30 



Attachment B 

Equipment Approved m FY 1992-93 Budget 
Which Could Potentially be Leased Financed through: 

Master Vendor L-ease Financing Program 



DEPARTMENT 





UNIT 


TOTAL 


FINANCING 


EQUIPMENT COUNT 


COST 


COSTS 


TERM 


COPIER 2 17.500 


35.000 


5 


TB CULTURE INCUBATOR 2 20,000 


40.000 


7 


FILING SYSTEM 


I 10,500 


10.500 


5 


MAMMOGRAPHY VAN 


23.000 


23.000 


7 


SOFTWARE LICENSE 


1 35,000 


35.000 * 


3 


AUTO 


t 14,000 


14,000 


5 


AUTO 


1 11,908 


11.908 


5 


C\RGO VAN/PICKUP TRUCK 


15,155 


15,155 


5 


SEDAN : 


5 10,825 


32.475 


5 


SPECTRUM ANALYZER 


I 22,733 


22,733 


5 


SCISSORS LIFT 


I 23,950 


23,950 


4 


HYDRAULIC SHEAR 


I 30,000 


30,000 


5 


PICKUP TRUCK 


I 13,200 


13,200 


4 


PICKUP TRUCK ' 


1 20,000 


80,000 


4 


GENERATOR 


I 22,000 


22,000 


4 


PASSENGER VAN 


I 20,000 


20,000 


4 


PICKUP TRUCK * 


1 12,200 


48,800 


4 


VAN, PARATRANSIT 


I 35.000 


35.000 


7 


RTAS/DIGITAL DICTATION 


I 16,100 


16.100 


5 


TELXON + 2W/S, MIS 


I 13,020 


13.020 


3 


DISHWASHER 


I 15,735 


15,735 


5 


SECURITY CAMERA SYSTEM 


I 10,850 


10,850 


5 


EQUIPMENT, DISH/SCRAPPER 


1 32^00 


32,500 


5 


EQUIPMENT, VEGETABLE 


1 10,850 


10,850 


5 


AUTO FEED FLATWORK 1 


30,000 


30,000 


7 


PATROL VEHICLE 


21,650 


21,650 


5 


STREET SWEEPER 1 


30,000 


30.000 


5 


COPIER 1 


14,191 


14.191 


5 


COPIER 1 


14,000 


14,000 


3 


NURSE CALL SYSTEM 1 


16,825 


16,825 


4 


CENTRAL STATION I 


66,000 


66.000 


4 


LIFEPAK CARDIAC MONITORS I 


i 10.625 


53.125 


4 


AUTO I 


20.000 


20,000 


4 


EMG MACHINE 1 


38.000 


38.000 


4 


OPHTHALMIC MICROSCOPE 1 


24.000 


24.000 


4 


SONIC WASHER 1 


29.407 


29.407 


5 



ASSESSOR 

DPH 

DPH 

DPH 

DPH 

DPH 

DPH 

DPH 

DPH 

DPH 

DPW/BBR 

DPW/BBR 

DPW/BBR 

DPW/BBR 

DPW/BBR 

DPW/BBR 

DPW/BBR 

LHH/MEDICAL 

LHH/NURSING 

LHH/OPS 

LHH/OPS 

LHH/OPS 

LHH/OPS 

LHH/OPS 

LHH/OPS 

LHH/OPS 

LHH/OPS 

PURCHASING 

RENT BOARD 

SFGH 

SFGH 

SFGH 

SFGH 

SFGH 

SFGH 

SFGH 



Total 

* May not qualify for lease financing. 



50 753.224 933.974 



31 



Attachment C 

Equipment Approved in FY 1992-93 Budget 

that should no< be Lease Financed through either 

the S. F. Finance Corporation or Master Vendor Lease Financing Program 









UNIT 


TOTAL 


DEPARTMENT 


EQUIPMENT 


COUNT 


COST 


COSTS 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3.973 


3.973 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3.900 


3.900 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


1 


1,400 


1,400 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


1.900 


1.900 


DPH 


DENTAL CHAIRS 


2 


4.052 


8,104 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3.562 


3362 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


2 


1.600 


3,200 


DPH 


DENTAL STEAM STERILIZER 


5 


4.123 


20.615 


DPH 


MULTIPLEXER 


1 


6.000 


6.000 


DPH 


MULTIPLEXER 


2 


3.444 


6.888 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


2.373 


2373 


DPH 


MULTIPLEXER 


12 


3,850 


46.200 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


1 


1.617 


1.617 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


1 


1,282 


1.282 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3,218 


3,218 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3.218 


3.218 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


1 


1,282 


1,282 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3,218 


3,218 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


1 


1.282 


1,282 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


1 


1.600 


1,600 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3.600 


3.600 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


2,875 


2^75 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


1 


1,880 


1.880 


DPH 


NOISE METER-TYPE 1 


1 


4330 


4330 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3.000 


3,000 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


3 


1,000 


3.000 


DPW/BBR 


WORKSTATION 


1 


6,415 


6.415 


DPW/BBR 


TAPE BACKUP SYSTEM 


1 


4.400 


4,400 


DPW/BBR 


WORKSTATION 


9 


3,415 


30,735 


DPW/BBR 


HP LASERJET PRINTER HIP 


8 


1,100 


8,800 


DPW/BBR 


HP LASERJET PRINTER HID 


1 


2,400 


2,400 


DPW/SC&UF 


PORTABLE RESTROOMS 


10 


6,275 


62,745 


LHHyCLINIC 


FURNITURE-ACCESSORIES 


1 


5.000 


5,000 


LHH/MEDICAL 


FILE CABINET 


1 


237 


237 


LHH/MEDICAL 


OFFICE CHAIRS 


3 


246 


738 


LHH/MEDICAL 


CHAIRS 


5 


105 


525 


LHH/MEDICAL 


ILLUNMUNIATOR, MAMMOGRAK 


1 


1.625 


1,625 


LHH/MEDICAL 


CHAIR, MAMMOGRAPHY 


1 


1.550 


1350 


LHH/MEDICAL 


DENTAL X-RAY DEVLPMT UNIT 


1 


2^00 


2^00 


LHH/MEDICAL 


WANDERGUARD SYSTEM 


1 


4.000 


4.000 


LHH/MEDICAL 


WIDE SCREEN TV 


1 


1.600 


1.600 



32 



Attachment C (cont) 









UNIT 


TOTAL 


DEPARTMENT 


EQUIPMENT 


COUNT 


COST 


COSTS 


LHH/MEDICAL 


ADH EQUIPMENT 




800 


800 


LHH/MEDICAL 


OFFICE PANEL SYSTEMS 




1.670 


1.670 


LHH/MEDICAL 


REFRIGERATOR 




800 


800 


LHH/MEDICAL 


OFFICE CHAIR 




400 


400 


LHH/NURSING 


GUERNEY. PATENT 




3.000 


9.000 


LHH/NURSING 


WHEELCHAIR, WIDE RECLINER 




1.250 


3,750 


LHH/NURSING 


LIFT. PATIENT ELECTRIC 


30 


1.500 


45.000 


LHH/NURSING 


WHEELCHAIR, 24' EXTR 


1 


2,000 


2.000 


LHH/NURSING 


LIFEPAK 9 SHOCK ADVISORY 


5 


1.434 


7.170 


LHH/NURSING 


LIFEPAK 9 DEFIByMONTrOR 


5 


7,145 


35,725 


LHH/NURSING 


WHEELCHAIR, 22" EXTR 


2 


1.750 


3300 


LHH/NURSING 


CART, MEDICATION 


2 


1.200 


2,400 


LHH/NURSING 


BED, ELECTRIC 


2 


2300 


4,600 


LHH/OPS 


PANELS & OFFICE SYS 


1 


4,883 


4,883 


LHH/OPS 


COMPUTER, MACINTOSH 


1 


2,400 


2,400 


LHH/OPS 


MIRROR DRIVE, MIS 


1 


5.425 


5,425 


LHH/OPS 


PANELS & OFFICE SYS 


1 


1,670 


1,670 


LHH/OPS 


OVEN. ROAST & HOLD 


1 


5.425 


5,425 


LHH/OPS 


SKILLET, TILTING 


3 


6310 


19330 


LHH/OPS 


EVACUATION CHAIRS 


4 


1300 


6,000 


LHH/OPS 


RADIO. MOTOROLA 2- WAY 


1 


6300 


6300 


LHH/OPS 


CARTS. LINEN DISTRIBUTION 


15 


500 


7300 


LHH/OPS 


UNIT. BATTERY CHARGER 


1 


5.000 


5,000 


LHH/OPS 


TRACK SYSTEM, DRAPERY 


8 


6,000 


48,000 


LHH/OPS 


WASHER, PRESSURE 


2 


1.800 


3.600 


LHH/OPS 


VACUUM, WET/DRY 


1 


1.800 


1300 


LHH/OPS 


FLOOR, BURNISHER, AUTO 


1 


3.000 


3,000 


LHH/OPS 


CHIPPER/SHREDDER 


1 


5,600 


5,600 


LHH/OPS 


VEHICLE, UTILITY 


2 


8300 


17,000 


LHH/OPS 


CARTS. TOWING 


12 


2,700 


32.400 


POLICE 


BULLET TRAP 


1 


8.100 


8.100 


POLICE 


HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRAP 


1 


1.800 


1.800 


POLICE 


PA SYSTEM 


1 


1.100 


1,100 


POLICE 


COMPUTER & PRINTER 


1 


2300 


2300 


POLICE 


VCR & TV MONITOR 


1 


2,000 


2,000 


POLICE 


SCANTRON 


1 


2,200 


2,200 


SPGH 


SPECTRA RADIOS 


7 


2,035 


14,245 


SPGH 


TAPE CABINETS 


1 


4.000 


4,000 


SPGH 


ELECTROCARDIOGRAPH 


10 


6,441 


64.410 


SPGH 


BEDSIDE MONITOR MODULES 


6 


2,770 


16.620 


SPGH 


GURNEYS 


13 


2,732 


35320 


Total 




247 


244.088 


721330 



33 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 

Items 5 and 6 - Files 102-92-13 and 101-92-31 

Department: 



Items: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office of Children Youth and their Families 
(MOCYF) 

Ordinance (Item 5, File 102-92-13) to amend the 1992-93 
Annual Salary Ordinance to reflect the addition of five 
positions. 

Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance (Item 6, File 101-92- 
31) to fund the five new positions. 

$70,804 

Children's Fund for Fiscal Year 1992-93 

The proposed ordinance (File 102-92-13) to amend 1992-93 
Annual Salary Ordinance would create five new permanent 
positions as follows: 









Maximum 






Biweekly 


Annual 






Salary 


Salary at 


*<>. 


Classification 


Range 


Top Step 


1 


9786 Assistant to Mayor III 


$1,826-1,916 


$50,008 


1 


9782 Assistant to Mayor I 


1,490-1,564 


40,820 


1 


9740 Staff Assist. IV, Spec. Pjt. 


1,682-1,682 


43,900 


1 


1632 Sr. Account Clerk 


1,136-1,375 


35,888 


1 


1422 Jr. Clerk Typist 


866-1,047 


27.327 




Total 




$197,943 



The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 
101-92-31) would fund the proposed five new positions for nine 
biweekly payperiods from February 25, through June 30, 1993 
at Step one (all new positions) plus fringe benefits as follows: 



Permanent Salaries - Misc. 
Mandatory Fringe Benefits* 
Total 



$63,000 

7.804 

$70,804 



*Mandatory Fringe Benefits exclude Health Insurance 
which will not begin until August, 1993 in FY 1993-94 and 
Retirement for the Asst. to Mayor classifications that are 
not eligible for Retirement benefits. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



The proposed source of funds is the Children's Fund 
including $24,062 in unappropriated revenue of the 
Children's Fund and $46,742 previously appropriated for 
Other Contractual Services and designated for 
administration of the Children's Fund. 

Proposition J, commonly known as the "Children's 
Amendment", that was approved by the electorate in 
November, 1991, amended Section 6.415 of the Charter to 
require the establishment of the San Francisco Children's 
Fund. The San Francisco Children's Fund augments the 
fiscal year 1990-91 or 1991-92 (whichever was greater) level of 
expenditures for services and programs for children by 
requiring that the City set aside a certain percentage of 
property tax revenues in the Children's Fund to fund 
additional services for children. 

The Children's Fund for Fiscal Year 1992-93 is 
approximately $5.7 million. The 1992-93 Children's Fund 
included $3,275,126 for contractual services for the purchase 
of children's services from community based organization 
contractors. As a result of a Request for Proposal process, the 
MOCYF reviewed 170 Statement of Intents and 124 Final 
Proposals in order to select 40 community based organization 
contractors. These activities were performed with a staff of 11 
plus an ad-hoc (volunteer) advisory panel of 45 members. 
Drawing up the contracts, continuing monitoring of the 
contracts and processing payments to the contractors must 
be performed solely by MOCYF staff. The contracts were 
scheduled to begin on January 1, 1993. Some of the contracts 
and some agreements with other City departments have been 
finalized but most of the contracts and agreements are still 
being negotiated. MOCYF indicates that the existing staff is 
working overtime to finalize the remaining contracts and 
agreements but is counting on the proposed new staff to 
assist in finalizing the contracts and agreements, as well as 
establishing the monitoring, reporting and reimbursement 
systems for all of the contracts and agreements. 

The Controller's Office estimates that the ad valorem tax 
revenue for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 Children's Fund will be 
approximately $13.2 million. The Children's Services Plan 
for 1993-94 allocates $7,288,524 of this $13.2 million for 
contractual services. Thus, the total MOCYF budget and the 
allocation for contractual services for 1993-94 are more than 
double the 1992-93 funding level ($13.2 for 1993-94 versus $5.7 
for 1992-93 and $7,288,524 versus $3,275,126). 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



The MOCYF currently has a total staff of ten. Six of the 
existing staff are permanent positions including the Director 
(9792-Asst. to Mayor VI), a Deputy Director (9790-Asst. to 
Mayor V), two Grant Coordinators (9786-Asst. to Mayor III), 
a Child Care Coordinator (9784-Asst. to Mayor II) and a 
Secretary (1446-Secretary II). Four of the existing positions 
are full time temporary positions. The MOCYF also had two 
grant funded employees up to December 31, 1992 when the 
grant funding expired and two, half time volunteers (also 
through December, 1992). Two of the four temporary positions 
would become permanent positions if the proposed five new 
positions are approved resulting in a total staff of 13 positions 
(10 existing positions plus 5 new positions less 2 old 
temporary positions that would become 2 of the new 
positions). 

The proposed five new position functional titles and duties 
and responsibilities are as follows: 

Grant Fiscal Coordinator (9786 Assistant to Mavor ED 
This position will be responsible for developing financial 
reporting systems to disburse Children's Fund monies, for 
the financial monitoring and implementation of financial 
systems for all Children's Fund grant (contract) activities 
including those administered by other City departments that 
are funded by the Children's Fund, as well as community 
based organizations. 

Planning Coordinator (9782 Assistant to Mavor D 
The Planning Coordinator is responsible for developing the 
annual Children's Services Plan (CSP) that identifies the 
goals and priorities for the Children's Fund, conducting the 
initial stages of implementing the annual CSP including 
developing the Request for Proposals, coordination with other 
City departments that will be implementing CSP activities 
and will assist in the development and implementation of a 
long range Strategic Plan for Children's Services. 

Special Projects Coordinator (9740 Staff Assist IV. Snec Pit) 

The Special Projects Coordinator's primary responsibility is 
the coordination and/or implementation of special projects 
related to the Children's Fund. Additionally, the Special 
Projects Coordinator will assist the Department Director with 
issues related to the administration and implementation of 
special projects, planning and policy issues. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 20, 1993 



Departm ent Accountant (1682 S r. Account Clerk) 
This position is responsible for reviewing and processing 
invoices for payment from grantees, for completing other 
internal accounting forms, maintaining financial records, 
establishing and maintaining cash internal controls and 
liaison with other City departments that provide children's 
services funded by the Children's Fund activities, regarding 
their financial operations. 

Receptionist/General Office (1422 Jr. Clerk Typist) 
The 1422 Jr. Clerk Typist is responsible for routine clerical 
and office work including answering phones, typing letters, 
forms and notices and other general office clerical duties. 



Recommendatioii: Approve the proposed ordinances. 




[arvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Shelley 
President Alioto 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Bierman 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



^r - // GALENDA r— /fcfioA/i ^«^ 

910.01 ^ noC ,,,^TSDEPt 

^ MEETING OF 

-BUDGET COMMITTEE JAN * y |y ^ 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FRA NClSCO 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



(il|l3 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1993 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS MIGDEN, HSIEH, SHELLEY 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR HSIEH - ITEM 1 

SUPERVISOR SHELLEY - ITEMS 6, 8-11, and 13-14 

CLERK: KAY GULBENGAY 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 



File 133-92-2.3 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Chief 
Administrative Officer/Solid Waste Management Program, in an amount totalling 
$241,000, for market research and marketing and advertising services, Barnes 
Clarke, Inc. (contractor). (CAO/Solid Waste Management Program) 
(Continued from 1/20/93) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Release of $241,000 recommended. Filed. 

File 170-93-1 . [Equipment Lease] Ordinance providing for the approval and 
execution and delivery by Officers of the City and County of San Francisco of an 
Equipment Lease Supplement No. 2 between the City and County of San Francisco 
Finance Corporation, as lessor and the City and County of San Francisco, as lessee 
with respect to equipment to be used for City purposes and the related certificate of 
approval; providing for reimbursement to the City of certain City expenditures prior 
to the issuance of lease revenue bonds and approving the issuance of Lease Revenue 
Bonds by said nonprofit corporation; and providing that said bonds shall be subject to 
the certification of the Controller of the City and County of San Francisco prior to 
the sale of said bonds; and providing for the execution of documents in connection 
therewith and ratifying previous actions taken in connection therewith. (Chief 
Administrative Officer) 

(Continued from 1/20/93) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amendment of the whole (as presented by Chief 
Administrative Officer) adopted. Bearing same title. 
Recommended. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE Page 2 

3. File 190-93-1 . Hearing to consider legislation authorizing Department of Parking 
and Traffic to take all necessary steps to replace damaged and/or defective parking 
meter equipment. (Supervisor Shelley) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Filed. 

4. File 102-92-13 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 
1992-93, Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families, reflecting the 
addition of five positions (Classifications 9786 Assistant to Mayor III (1), 9782 
Assistant to Mayor I (1), 9740 Staff Assistant IV, Special Project (1), 1632 Sr. 
Account Clerk (1), 1422 Jr. Clerk Typist (1). (Civil Service Commission) 
(Companion measure to File 101-92-31) 

(Continued from 1/20/93) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to February 3, 1993 meeting at request of 
author. 

5. File 101-92-31 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $70,804, Mayor's 
Office of Children, Youth and their Families, for permanent salaries - miscellaneous 
and related mandatory fringe benefits and rescinding $46,742 from other contractual 
services, for the creation of five positions. (Supervisor Achtenberg) 

(Continued from 1/20/93) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to February 3, 1993 meeting at request of 
author. 



File 101-92-23 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $1,400,000, San 
Francisco General Hospital, for capital improvement project, (Ward 14 and 15) for 
fiscal year 1992-93; placing $1,140,000 on reserve. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

File 161-92-5.1 . [Redevelopment Agency Budget and Bonds] Resolution approving an 
amendment to the Budget of the Redevelopment Agency for fiscal year 1992-93. 
(Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. (Supervisor Hsieh dissented.) 

File 101-92-30 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $220,000, Public 
Defender, for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits. RO #92134 
(Controller) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE Page 3 

9. File 101-92-26 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $8,727, Superior 
Court, for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits. RO #92125. 
(Controller) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amendment of the whole adopted. 

New Title : "Appropriating $5,450 for permanent salaries and related 
mandatory fringe benefits, for the creation of one (1) position and 
deletion of one (1) position, Superior Court for Fiscal Year 1992-93." 
Continued to February 3, 1993 meeting. 

10. File 102-92-11 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 
1992-93, Superior Court, reflecting the reclassification to two positions. 
(Companion measure to File 101-92-26) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amended on page 1 (title) line 2 by replacing "two" with 
"one" and by deleting lines 15 and 16. 

New Title : "Amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 1992-93, Superior 
Court, reflecting the reclassification of one (1) position." 
Continued to February 3, 1993 meeting. 

11. File 28-92-11.1 . [Airport Administration] Resolution approving the Controller's 
action of increasing the Airports Commission project budget from $150,000 to 
$500,000 for Airport Contract No. 3200, emergency environmental services at Road 
18 and Road 9, San Francisco International Airport. (Airports Commission) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

12. File 175-93-1 . [Local Public Finance Authority] Resolution declaring the intent of 
the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco to propose an 
increase in the Transactions and Use Tax in the City and County pursuant to Chapter 
3.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and establishing the San Francisco County 
Public Finance Authority. (Supervisors Migden, Bierman) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amendment of the whole (as presented by Supervisor 
Migden) adopted. Bearing same title. 
Recommended as amended. (Supervisor Hsieh dissented.) 

13. File 100-92-12 . Hearing to consider a report from the Controller regarding the 
1992-93 fiscal year budget status to date. (Supervisor Migden) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Filed. 

14. File 100-93-2 . Hearing to consider Joint Report by Mayor, Controller, and Budget 
Analyst regarding the 1993-94 fiscal budget year projected revenues and 
expenditures. (Supervisor Migden) 

ACTION: Continued to February 10, 1993 meeting. 






CITY AND COUNTY 




Public Library, ^Documents Tfept. 
&¥&{: Jane Hudson 



.. i.«cmTS DEPT, 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



JAN 26 1993 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



January 25, 1993 



TO: Budget Committee 

FROM: l3utiget Analyst fieco^^^ JZfr* ^5 . 

SUBJECT: January 27, 1993 Budget Committee Meeting 
///// 



Item 1 - File 133-92-2.3 

Note: This item was continued at the January 20, 1993 Budget Committee 
Meeting. 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 



Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 
Solid Waste Management Program 

Release of reserved funds for 
marketing and advertising services. 

$241,000 



market research and 



Source of Funds: Refuse Collection and Disposal Fees Impound Account 

Description During its review of the Solid Waste Management Program's 

budget for fiscal year 1992-93, the Board of Supervisors reserved 
$241,000 of the Professional Services budget for market 
research and marketing and advertising services pending 
selection of the contractors and identification of hours, hourly 
rates and MBE/WBE status. 

The Solid Waste Management Program sent notices of 
availability of requests for proposals to approximately 500 
advertising and public relations firms in the San Francisco 
Bay Area. Twenty of these firms submitted proposals that 
were reviewed by a panel of public outreach coordinators and 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

public relations professionals who selected the firm of Barnes 
Clarke, Inc., a WBE firm. Barnes Clarke, Inc. will be 
utilizing three subcontractors including Wilson Chang 
Communications (a MBE firm), Consumer Action (a non- 
profit organization) and Wright Design Group (a for profit 
firm that is not a MBE/WBE firm). 

According to the Solid Waste Management Program, market 
research and marketing and advertising services will be 
purchased on an as-needed basis. The Solid Waste 
Management Program has provided the attached list 
showing hourly rates and an estimate of hours of service at 
those hourly rates. The total hours of service is 1,641 and the 
average hourly rate is $78.62 ($241,000 total cost less $86,990 
for production materials and $25,000 for advertising media 
buys or $129,010 divided by 1,641 hours). 

Recommendation: Release reserve funding in the amount of $241,000 as 
requested. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



•ihSTE MGr-iT 



Attachment 
Paee 1 o± 2 



Cl — 

























1 1 

i 1 1 

i j 


i 








1 — 






























a 
o 


c 

D 

o 

E 
< 




in 

C\) 
CO 

CO 


V) 

CM 

LO 

CM 


o 
o 

CO 

CD 




o 

CD 

in 

CM 








o 
at 

in 


1 
• 

mi 

CO! 

1 °i 

(Dj 








m 

CO 

ch 









«n 

CM 












1 

1 






m 

-* CM 
CO CM 


O 

ID 

SO 






O 

H 

o 


03 

o 

X 




CO 

CO 


CP 


co 












o 




! 


















O 

IO 














1 

i 
1 



CM 





to 










15 

w 
O 

6 


3 
o 

2 
a 




to 


V7 














ID 

CO 




m 

CO 


































CO 


CO 




in 












CM 

■o 

CO 

o 

-C 

© 
> 
O 




m 

CM 


in 

CM 


CM 












in 

CM 




m 

CM 




















CM 








- 










CM 


CM 













Q 


o 

JC 

--» 

2 




o 
m 


o 


O 

If) 












O 
CD 




O 


















10 
10 
















O 

co 




CO 

















1 

© 

CD 

cr 

© 

en 




© 

e 

8 

D 

>■ 
a> 

CO 


o 
o 

© 

o 
O 

a 
a 
o 


*-» 

CO 

5- 
C0 
C 
< 

a 

a 




a 

«-> 
o 

CO 




© 

E 

© 

CO 

© 
_> 

a 
© 

6 

cm' 




"© 
B 
O 

o 

E 
o 

© 
a 
o 

CD 

> 
© 
Q 


CO 

s 
i 

s 

«0 

E 
a 
6d 
o 

a 


S 

v. 

© 

C 

5 

CO 

© 
a 

§ 

s 

c 
o 
O 


D 

CO 

o 

© 

S 
a 

c> 

B 

© 

g 


& 

8 

a 

co' 
© 

E 

© 

c 

a 

E 
© 


5^ 

c 
© 

E 

© 

© 

s 

c 

CS 

CO 

© 




2 
o 

CO 




© 

E 

g 

c 
a 

2 

c 
_o 



T) 
O 

a. 

CO 




a> 

c 
a 

E 

cr 


13 
O 
ZJ 

TO 
O 




c 


t; 

a 

g 
© 

© 

CO 

© 

> 



E 
S 

to 

1 

© 
a 

E 

a 

c 




1 


a 
c 



*•* 
a 
© 


c 

8 

■3 

■~ 

s 




Z) 

XJ 



a 




c 




Z3 
T) 

2 

Q. 

O 
© 
X5 
> 




w. 
© 

i 

CD 

5 
© 

X5 

a 
a. 

s 






1 

CX 


co 


© 


Z3 
O 

O. 
O 

L1J 




"5 


00 










rlOifcWbl p.ij 

Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



















M ! 

1 i i ' M 




































to 


6 








































! 














© 


© 


1 














1 ■ ; i 






















j 








d 






CO 


to 


i 

i 






o 
o 
o 

o 


© 
o 

o 

1© 


O 

o 

CD 






i 


























1 

1 




to 
O 
o 

CO 

© 

re 


c 
to 

■c 

> 
"© 

re 

en 

c 

© 






"O 

re 
© 

© 
> 
o 

re 


s 

cc 

Ci 

© 

c 

00 

© 


1 
o 


c 

3 
o 
E 
< 


o 
o 

UD 
CD 


o 

o 




o 1 !o 
©i o 

O; j to 

av cr> 


1 

iiO 
In. 

*. 












© 

CD 

© 
© 




o 

O 

o 

»o~ 

CM 




© 

o 
© 

CM 






o 
CJ 

o 
£ 






























; 




1 


























c 
re 

< 


1 




o 

CO 

© 


re 
E 






> 

-a 

c 


3 

.£ 




















i ! 


1 


















































































n 








o 












o 

at 


co 






o 


o 


co 


co 








o 


to 
r 


























U- 








o 

Q. 


1, 
g 

© 






© 


© 
"5 


W 


3 

o 






o 


CO 


CM 


CM 


© 




| 


o 

co 


























© 
o 








X3 






o 


to 





X 
























1 


























e 

a 








o 


© 








co 
J3 
























































w 










^ 






£ 


























































c 






W 


c 






o 


CO 




3 




















































>■ 








CO 
C9 


re 






o 

re 


•o 

re 


"5 

o 

> 
O 


O 






o 
© 


© 

o 


IO 


IO 


O 

CO 








in 

© 




© 


























1 
to 
■© 






c 
re 


D 
> 

5 

S3 


o 

a 

1 






T5 

re 
© 


| 

c 




















































■D 






© 


rt 








re 


o 




















































3 
© 






1 


E 
re 


c 
o 

xs 
a 

©" 






© 

re 
to 
§ 

© 
to 


to 

_re 

© 
re 
£ 

re 
c 
o 




-o 

© 






o 


o 


O 


o 


o 








LO 




o 


























s. 










© 

> 
O 






CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 








CM 




CM 


























8 

c 

CO 


o 

CD 




3 
cr 
© 

CD 


© 
a. 


o 

c 
re 

c 

o 




























































co 
c 


-o 

CD 




u 
3r 
O 


-> 

CO 


c 
re 
E 






D 

tz 

Xtl 


O 

E 




k. 
























































© 


3 
O 




















































re 


J= 






R 






to 

CI 


o 


.E 






o 


© 


to 


IO 


o 








O 




O 




© 




© 


















c 






© 


c 
re 


■o 






CJ 

e 

a 




Q 








CO 


CO 


1X5 


IO 


CO 








^* 




■* 




CM 




r- 


















re. 
o 

T> 

E 

© 

■o 

ZJ 

o 

c 

© 




— 


a 






o 




tr 










































> 
3 

CO 

E 

a 
c 

i2 










lO 

C\i 

_>< 
OB 

IS 

E 

X 

2 

re 
© 
re 




© 

o 
•a 
r> 
o 
c 

8 
9 


I 

re 

1 

© 

c 

w 

C 

o 


US 

c 
re 
© 
o 

s 

E 
o 

co" 

© 

cx 
© 


CO 

s 

© 
to 

■o 

c 
re 

to 

© 




•a 
o 

X) 

5 
"re 

1 

w 
o 
© 
to 

re 


© 
E 
© 

© 

o 

c 

to 

3 

X! 






.* 




© 

c 

to 

© 


© 

c 
a 

CD 


s 

Q 

a 
re 








a 
o 




© 




© 




co 

♦ ■ 

c 

CO 

to 
© 
o 
o 


" 


co 

t: 
o 

s 

to 
© 

© 
m 




to 

© 

2 

o 

c 
o 

o 




















o 




at 




o 








5 

>> 
a 

8 




§ 

a. 




n 












L 
















© 


X 






t> 


re 






o 




Q 

CD 

c 


ft 

TO 


c 
CO 

o 


© 

© 

n 
Q. 


© 

to 












■© 




E 

3 




s 




© 

> 

5 










I 

D 


8 
re 

to 




© 

> 


a 
o 
£ 
a 


© 

> 


o 

CO 

1 

o 
o. 




© 
o 


© 






tri 




O 


© 


5 












CO 




^ 




co' 




o> 




o 




■»-» 










w 


x: 
1- 




CM 


CD 


re 
a 




CO 


J» 



o r; » 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

Item 2 -File 170-93-1 

Note: This item was continued from the January 20, 1993 meeting of the Budget 

Committee. 

Item: Ordinance providing for the approval and execution and 

delivery by officers of the City and County of San Francisco of 
an Equipment Lease Supplement No. 2 between the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation, as Lessor, and the City and 
County of San Francisco, as Lessee, with respect to 
equipment to be used for City purposes and the related 
Certificate of Approval; providing for reimbursement to the 
City of certain City expenditures prior to the issuance of lease 
revenue bonds and approving the issuance of lease revenue 
bonds by said non-profit corporation; providing that said 
bonds shall be subject to the certification of the Controller of 
the City and County of San Francisco prior to the sale of said 
bonds; and providing for the execution of documents in 
connection therewith and ratifying previous actions taken in 
connection therewith. 

Amount: Not to exceed $10 million. 

Description: In June, 1990, San Francisco voters approved Proposition C, 

a Charter amendment which authorized the Board of 
Supervisors to authorize and approve the lease-financing of 
equipment purchases for the City through a non-profit 
corporation, the San Francisco Finance Corporation. The 
equipment leased by the City is purchased by the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation with the proceeds of Lease 
Revenue Bonds. 

Pursuant to Proposition C, the total outstanding indebtedness 
of the San Francisco Finance Corporation may not exceed a 
principal amount of $20 million at any given time beginning 
in 1990-91, with the limit increased by 5 percent in each 
subsequent fiscal year. The maximum amount of authorized 
outstanding indebtedness in 1992-93 will be $22,050,000. 

Interest rates on lease-revenue bonds issued by non-profit 
corporations are generally lower than on other financing 
instruments, resulting in lower lease-purchase costs to the 
City, because of the tax-exempt status of investments in non- 
profit corporations. Proposition C requires that the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation may not issue Lease Revenue 
Bonds for equipment purchases unless the Controller 
certifies that the interest costs to the City will be lower 
through the San Francisco Finance Corporation than 
through other financing instruments. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



In fiscal year 1990-91 the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
issuance by the San Francisco Finance Corporation of 
$7,304,707 in Lease Revenue Bonds to finance the purchase of 
equipment, and authorized the execution of an Equipment 
Lease between the City and the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation for the purchased equipment. In 1991-92, the 
Board of Supervisors approved the issuance of not more than 
an additional $10 million in lease revenue bonds (Series 
1992A) for equipment purchases, and authorized the 
approval of an Equipment Lease Supplement No. 1 between 
the City and the San Francisco Finance Corporation for the 
lease-purchase of equipment obtained with the Series 1992A 
revenue bond proceeds. 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the issuance of 
additional lease revenue bonds in fiscal year 1992-93 by the 
San Francisco Finance Corporation in an amount not to 
exceed $10 million, provided that the Controller certifies that 
interest costs to the City under the proposed bond issuance 
would be lower than through other financing sources. The 
proposed ordinance would also authorize an Equipment 
Lease Supplement No. 2 between the City and the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation for the City's lease purchase 
of additional equipment purchased with new bond revenues. 

The proposed ordinance was continued from the January 20, 
1993 meeting of the Budget Committee in order to consider 
the inclusion of parking meter equipment in the equipment 
which would be purchased with the proposed lease revenue 
bonds (see Comment 15). 

In addition, the proposed ordinance provides for 
reimbursement to the City of certain expenditures (see 
Comment 13) prior to the issuance of the proposed additional 
lease revenue bonds, provides for the execution of documents 
needed to implement the proposed ordinance, and ratifies 
actions previously taken. 

The annual budgets of City departments must include the 
amount of the City's annual lease purchase payments 
(including principal and interest) for equipment procured 
through the San Francisco Finance Corporation. Since these 
payments are required under the terms of the lease-purchase 
agreement with the San Francisco Finance Corporation, the 
annual payments become fixed costs of City departments for 
a period of several years, once the equipment has been 
procured, until the cost of the equipment is paid in full by the 
City. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



Comments: 1. As previously noted, the San Francisco Finance 

Corporation was authorized to issue $7,304,707 in 1990-91 and 
up to $10 million in 1991-92 in Lease Purchase Revenue bonds 
to procure equipment on behalf of the City. According to the 
Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. Rudy Nothenberg, the 
actual amount of Lease Purchase Revenue bonds issued by 
the San Francisco Finance Corporation, the amounts which 
have been repaid, and the current outstanding indebtedness 
of the San Francisco Finance Corporation are as follows: 



Description 



Amount 



Series 1991A 






Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued 


$7,020,000 




Repayment to date 


(2.060.0W) 




Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1991A: 




$4,960,000 


Series 1992A 






Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued 


$5,555,000 




Repayment to date 


(365.000) 




Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1992A: 




5.190.000 


Total Current Outstanding Indebtedness 




$10,150,000 



2. Proposition C established limits on the total outstanding 
indebtedness of the San Francisco Finance Corporation. The 
Charter amendment states that total indebtedness was 
limited to $20 million, to be "increased by 5 percent each fiscal 
year following approval of this subsection." The Charter 
amendment was approved in June, 1990. 

Mr. Fred Weiner of the CAO's Office states that the City has 
adopted a conservative interpretation of the Charter 
amendment by regarding $20 million as the debt limit for 
1990-91, without the 5 percent increase which was allowed 
"in the first fiscal year" following enactment of Proposition C 
in June, 1990. On this basis, the limit on the outstanding debt 
capacity for 1992-93 is $22,050,000 and, under Proposition C, 
the San Francisco Finance Corporation can issue no more 
than $11.9 million in lease purchase revenue bonds in 1992-93 
($22,050,00 current debt limit less $10,150,000 current 
outstanding debt). 

As previously noted, the proposed ordinance would authorize 
the issuance of new revenue bonds in 1992-93 in an amount 
not to exceed $10 million, which is within the San Francisco 
Finance Corporation's current debt capacity under 
Proposition C of $11.9 million. If a total of $10 million in new 
revenue bonds is actually issued in 1992-93, the debt capacity 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



for 1993-94 will be $3,002,500 ($1.9 million remaining debt 
capacity in 1992-93 plus $1,102,500 in new debt capacity for 
1993-94, based on a 5 percent increase from $22,050,000 to 
$23,152,500). 

3. Mr. Nothenberg reports that approximately $10.6 million 
in equipment was approved for lease financing by the Mayor 
and the Board of Supervisors in the 1992-93 budget. This 
amount exceeds by $600,000 the proposed $10 million in new 
revenue bonds which would be authorized under the 
proposed ordinance. 

A list prepared by the CAO's Office of the equipment 
purchases requested by City departments for 1992-93, at a 
total cost of $11,037,082, is attached to this report. 

"Attachment A" lists proposed equipment purchases 
totalling $9,381,778 for equipment valued at more than 
$100,000, or which could not be cost-effectively financed 
through other means, according to the CAO's Office. 
"Attachment B" reflects proposed equipment purchases of 
$933,974 for equipment valued between $10,000 and $100,000. 
"Attachment C" reflects proposed purchases of $721,330 for 
equipment valued at less than $10,000. 

The financing term for the lease-purchase of this equipment 
varies from 3 to 7 years. 

4. Mr. Nothenberg advises that, in his opinion, City 
departments have requested equipment lease-purchases by 
the City which are inappropriate for this type of financing, 
since the San Francisco Finance Corporation was established 
to finance "major" equipment lease purchases by City 
departments. The Budget Analyst strongly concurs and 
notes that lease-purchases of equipment should be limited to 
items which are appropriately financed over a period of 3 to 7 
years, based on the expected useful life of the equipment, or 
for which funds are unavailable for outright purchase 
because the cost of the equipment is prohibitively expensive. 

Mr. Nothenberg states that only the equipment listed on 
Attachment A, with a total value of $9,381,778, (or $618,222 
less than the $10 million proposed maximum amount of the 
bond issue) is appropriate for lease-financing through the 
San Francisco Finance Corporation. 

The proposed ordinance reflects that the equipment listed in 
Attachment A would be purchased with the proposed lease 
revenue bonds. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



Ms. Laura Wagner-Lockwood of the CAO's Office states that, 
although the total cost of the equipment listed on Attachment 
A is only $9,381,778, a bond issue of up to $10 million will still 
be needed to purchase the equipment, because: 1) the actual 
equipment costs will be determined through competitive 
bidding, which could increase total expenditures above the 
estimated $9,381,778; and, 2) the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation is required to maintain a reserve balance of 
approximately 10 percent of the bond proceeds. 

5. Attachment A lists 40 General Fleet Vehicles which would 
be purchased on behalf of the City at a total cost of $400,000, 
whereas the approved 1992-93 budget authorizes only 30 
General Fleet vehicles to be purchased at a maximum cost of 
$402,000. Mr. Weiner, of the CAO's Office, and Mr. Ara 
Minasian of the Purchasing Department attribute this 
discrepancy to a typographical error in the number of 
vehicles listed on Attachment A, which should be amended 
from "40" to "30." 

6. Mr. Nothenberg reports that he will propose that the 
equipment listed on Attachment B, valued at $933,974, be 
financed through a new "Master Vendor Lease Financing 
Program," which would involve obtaining a line of credit 
from a bank or other financial institution. Once established, 
departments would then be allowed to access this credit line 
to purchase these smaller equipment items if previously 
authorized in the budget, according to Mr. Nothenberg. 

Mr. Nothenberg reports that he is working with the City 
Attorney, the Controller, and the Mayor's Office to develop 
such a proposal, which would then be subject to separate 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

7. Mr. Nothenberg states that, in his opinion, it is not 
"economically prudent or practically feasible" to lease- 
finance the equipment items listed on Attachment C, each of 
which is valued at less than $10,000. Mr. Nothenberg 
recommends that these items not be lease-financed but 
purchased outright in the 1993-94 budget. 

Attachment C includes 247 low-cost items valued at less than 
$10,000, including several file cabinets and office chairs at a 
unit cost of less than $250 . The Budget Analyst strongly 
concurs with the Chief Administrative Office that these items 
are inappropriate for lease-financing. 



BOARD OF ST IPERVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



8. The use of lease-financing is equivalent to borrowing 
funds, with resultant interest costs, to pay for the City's 
smaller type equipment items which should instead be fully 
reflected in annual departmental budget requests. Since 
such financing also requires fixed, mandatory lease 
payments by City departments over several years, the 
extensive use of lease-purchases "locks in' departmental 
expenditures for future years. This will adversely affect the 
City by limiting discretion and constraining the allocation of 
City funds in future years. 

9. The actual interest costs to the City of the proposed 1992-93 
equipment lease-purchases cannot be determined precisely, 
since the interest rate will depend on the prices offered for the 
bonds when the bonds are offered for sale. Interest costs will 
also vary for each item based on the number of years in the 
repayment period. 

However, Ms. Wagner-Lockwood estimates that, if 1993 Lease 
Revenue Bonds are sold in a principal amount of $9.05 
million (based on the CAO's current estimate of the actual 
equipment purchases which would be made with the bond 
proceeds), at an estimated annual interest rate of 4.2 percent 
(based on current market rates for short-term bonds), then, 
based on the expected repayment periods, the City's total 
principal and interest costs would be $10.17 million over the 
life of the bonds. Based on these estimates, the City's total 
interest costs over the life of the bonds would be $1.12 million 
($10.17 million estimated total repayment cost less $9.05 
million estimated original principal amount). 

10. Ms. Wagner-Lockwood estimates that the City's total 1993- 
94 payments to the San Francisco Finance Corporation for 
the proposed new equipment (including principal and 
interest) will be approximately $2.25 million, and that the 
maximum debt service (amount of the City's repayment) 
which would be required in any single year before the bonds 
are retired would be approximately $2.5 million. 

However, the proposed ordinance reflects that the maximum 
annual payment for the proposed equipment would be $1.5 
million. Ms. Wagner-Lockwood states that this reflects a 
typographical error, and the proposed ordinance should be 
amended to reflect a maximum annual payment of $2.5 
million. 

11. Because of the interest costs necessarily associated with 
lease-purchases and the need to budget lease-purchase 
payments over several years, the Budget Analyst believes 

BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



that, to the maximum extent possible , the full cost of aJLL 
equipment purchases should be incorporated into the annual 
operating budgets of City departments, rather than extended 
over a financing period of 3 to 7 years through lease 
purchasing arrangements. 

12. Mr. Weiner states that the purchase price of the proposed 
equipment was detailed in 1992-93 departmental budgets for 
equipment purchases, in order to identify the proposed 
equipment purchases, but that departmental budgets were 
also reduced by an equivalent amount. Therefore, funds are 
not included in the City's approved 1992-93 budget for 
expenditures (either the purchase or leasing costs) for the 
proposed new equipment. 

Mr. Weiner states that lease purchase payments for the new 
equipment will not be required in the current 1992-93 fiscal 
year, since the initial payments for new equipment are not 
made until approximately six months after the new 
equipment is purchased by the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation and leased to the City. In addition, the 1993 
revenue bonds must be issued before the equipment can be 
purchased by the San Francisco Finance Corporation. 

13. The proposed resolution provides for reimbursement by 
the San Francisco Finance Corporation of certain City 
expenditures. Mr. Weiner indicates that, under this 
provision, the City could receive reimbursement for any 
equipment which the City purchases before the proposed 1993 
lease revenue bonds are sold. Subsequent to this 
reimbursement, the equipment would belong to the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation and could also be leased to 
the City. 

14. The City would take ownership of the proposed equipment 
upon repayment of principal and interest costs to the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation, according to the repayment 
terms specified in the Equipment Lease Supplement No. 2, 
which the CAO would be authorized to execute under the 
proposed ordinance. As previously noted, the repayment 
period for the proposed equipment varies from 3 to 7 years. 

Proposal to Include Parking Meter Equipment 

15. The proposed ordinance was continued from the January 
20, 1993 Budget Committee meeting in order to consider the 
inclusion of parking meter equipment in the list of equipment 
which would be purchased with the proposed lease revenue 
bonds. The Deparment of Parking and Traffic (DPT) has 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



reported that new equipment is needed due to vandalism 
against the City's existing parking meters (see File 190-93-1, 
item 3 of this report). 

The proposed parking meter equipment was not included in 
the approved 1992-93 budget. If the equipment is not financed 
with lease revenue bonds, it would require a supplemental 
appropriation in order to be replaced. The estimated 
replacement cost is $835,200. 

16. Ms. Wagner-Lockwood states that it was originally 
anticipated that a bond issue of up to $10 million would 
provide for all equipment purchases on Attachment A except 
the CAT-scan unit for San Francisco General Hospital 
(SFGH), valued at approximately $1.3 million, since SFGH 
indicated a desire to lease, rather than lease-purchase, the 
CAT-scan unit. 

If the CAT-scan unit were included, Ms. Laura-Wagner 
indicates that a bond issue of $10.7 million would be needed to 
purchase all of the equipment listed on Attachment A 
(without including the proposed additional parking meter 
equipment). This estimated $10.7 million cost would exceed 
the maximum bond issue of $10 million as currently provided 
in the proposed ordinance. 

Ms. Wagner-Lockwood states that she has been advised by 
SFGH that the hospital will seek to lease the CAT-scan 
equipment, but would like to reserve an option to lease- 
purchase the equipment. Ms. Wagner-Lockwood states that 
it is inadvisable to issue lease-purchase revenue bonds for 
equipment which may not be purchased, and the Budget 
Analyst concurs. 

17. Ms. Wagner-Lockwood has developed the following four 
scenarios for lease purchases of equipment under the 
proposed ordinance, depending on whether or not the 
parking meter equipment and the CAT-scan equipment are 
included. (Apart from these items, the scenarios assume 
that all other equipment items authorized in the 1992-93 
budget, and appearing on Attachment A, would be 
purchased.) 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



Bond Issue Maximum Annual Estimated Total 

Alternative : Required Debt Service Interest Cost 

1. Omit CAT-scan 

omit parking meters $9.05 million $2.5 million $1.12 million 

2. Omit CAT-scan 

include parking meters $10.2 million $3.0 million $1.3 million 

3. Include CAT-scan 

omit parking meters $10.7 million $3.0 million $1.4 million 

4. Include CAT-scan 

include parking meters $11.6 million $3.3 million 1.47 million 

The table above reflects the bond issue which would be 
required to purchase the equipment included in each 
scenario, the maximum annual debt service (maximum 
amount of the City's repayment) which would be required in 
order to retire the bonds on schedule, and the estimated total 
interest cost to the City associated with each alternative. As 
the size of the required bond issue increases, the table 
generally reflects that higher annual repayments are needed 
to retire the bonds on schedule, and that estimated interest 
costs increase due to the increase in the principal amount. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend Attachment A, which was submitted with the 
proposed ordinance and is on file with the Clerk of the Board, 
by amending the number of General Fleet vehicles for the 
Purchasing Department from 40 to 30, in accordance with 
Comment 5, above. 

2. If the proposed lease revenue bonds are approved in an 
amount higher than $10 million, the proposed ordinance 
should be amended at page 4, line 4 and page 4, line 8 to 
reflect the maximum amount of the bond issue which would 
be authorized by the Board of Supervisors, as follows: 

If the CAT-scan is excluded and the Committee authorizes 
the lease-purchase of the parking meter equipment, amend 
page 4, line 4 and page 4, line 8, to reflect an amount not to 
exceed $10.2 million. 

If the CAT-scan is included and the Committee authorizes 
the lease-purchase of the parking meter equipment, amend 
page 4, line 4 and page 4, line 8, to reflect an amount not to 
exceed $11.6 million. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



3. Amend page 4, line 6 of the proposed ordinance to reflect 
that the City's maximum annual payment for a bond issue 
not to exceed $10 million would be $2.5 million, rather than 
$1.5 million, in accordance with Comment 10, above. 
However, if the proposed lease revenue bonds are approved in 
an amount which may exceed $10 million, amend page 4, 
line 6 to reflect the revised maximum annual amount of the 
City's repayment, based on the maximum amount of the 
lease revenue bonds which are authorized. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Attachment A 

Equipment Approved in FY 1992-93 Budget 
Proposed to be Leased Financed through: 

City and County of San Francisco Finance Corporation 



DEPARTMENT 







UNIT 


TOTAL 


FINANCING 


EQUIPMENT 


COUNT 


COST 


COSTS 


TERM 


ROLL PAPER MACHINE 


1 


125,000 


125.000 


3 


MECHANICAL SWEEPER 


1 


125.000 


125,000 


4 


PASSENGER VANS 


10 


18,803 


188.030 


3 


PUMPER TRUCK 


4 


228.170 


912.680 


7 


AERIAL TRUCK 


2 


448,225 


896.450 


7 


SOLO MOTORCYCLES 


10 


7.688 


76.880 » 


5 


TRAIL MOTORBIKES 


13 


4,200 


54.600 » 


3 


PATROL WAGONS & OUTFIT 


7 


23,261 


162,827 


4 


PIC RADIOS 


225 


2.079 


467,775 


5 


POLICE CARS 


116 


17,846 


2,070.158 


3 


OCR - BARCODER 


1 


250,000 


250,000 


5 


VEHICLES - GENERAL FLEET 


40 


10,000 


400,000 


5 


INPATIENT BEDS 


126 


6,910 


870,710 


5 


AMBULANCES 


5 


80,000 


400,000 


4 


OR LIGHTS 


6 


25,000 


150,000 


4 


SPECIALTY BEDS 


13 


10,783 


140,175 


5 


ENDOSCOPIC COLOR VI 


3 


69.992 


209,976 


5 


ENDOSCOPIC UTLTASON1C 


1 


133,021 


133,021 


5 


ULTRASOUND UPGRADE 


2 


130,430 


260,860 


5 


MAMMO PROCESSOR 


2 


80,418 


160,835 


5 


CTUNIT 


1 


1 326,801 


1326,801 


4 



CONTROLLER 

DPW/SC&UF 

DPW/SC&UF 

FIRE 

FIRE 

POLICE 

POLICE 

POLICE 

POLICE 

POLICE 

PURCHASING 

PURCHASING 

SFGH 

SFGH 

SFGH 

SFGH 

SFGH 

SFGH 

SFGH 

SFGH 

SFGH 



TOTAL 



589 3,123.627 9,381,778 



• While these items do not meet threshold of $100,000 aggregrate cost, due 
to the high risk nature of the items, it was determined they could not be 
cost-effectively financed in any other fashion. 



15 



Attachment B 

Equipment Approved in FY 1992-93 Budget 

Which Could Potentially be Leased Financed through: 

Master Vendor Lease Financing Program 







UNIT 


TOTAL 


FINANCING 


DEPARTMENT 


EQUIPMENT COUNT 


COST 


COSTS 


TERM 


ASSESSOR 


COPIER ; 


17,500 


35,000 


5 


DPH 


TB CULTURE INCUBATOR 2 20,000 


40,000 


7 


DPH 


FILING SYSTEM 


10,500 


10,500 


5 


DPH 


MAMMOGRAPHY VAN 


23,000 


23,000 


7 


DPH 


SOFTWARE LICENSE 


35,000 


35,000 * 


3 


DPH 


AUTO 


14,000 


14,000 


5 


DPH 


AUTO 


11,908 


11,908 


5 


DPH 


CARGO VAN/PICKUP TRUCK 


15,155 


15,155 


5 


DPH 


SEDAN : 


1 10,825 


32,475 


5 


DPH 


SPECTRUM ANALYZER 


22,733 


22.733 


5 


DPW/BBR 


SCISSORS LIFT 


23,950 


23,950 


4 


DPW/BBR 


HYDRAULIC SHEAR 


30,000 


30,000 


5 


DPW/BBR 


PICKUP TRUCK 


13,200 


13,200 


4 


DPW/BBR 


PICKUP TRUCK <■ 


1 20,000 


80,000 


4 


DPW/BBR 


GENERATOR 


22,000 


22,000 


4 


DPW/BBR 


PASSENGER VAN 


20,000 


20,000 


4 


DPW/BBR 


PICKUP TRUCK ' 


I 12.200 


48,800 


4 


LHH/MEDICAL 


VAN, PARATRANSIT 


35.000 


35,000 


7 


LHH/NURSING 


RTAS/DIGITAL DICTATION 


16,100 


16.100 


5 


LHH/OPS 


TELXON + 2W/S, MIS 


I 13,020 


13.020 


3 


LHH/OPS 


DISHWASHER 


1 15,735 


15,735 


5 


LHH/OPS 


SECURITY CAMERA SYSTEM 


1 10,850 


10,850 


5 


LHH/OPS 


EQUIPMENT, DISH/SCRAPPER 


32,500 


32,500 


5 


LHH/OPS 


EQUIPMENT, VEGETABLE 


10,850 


10,850 


5 


LHH/OPS 


AUTO FEED FLATWORK 


30,000 


30,000 


7 


LHH/OPS 


PATROL VEHICLE 


21,650 


21,650 


5 


LHH/OPS 


STREET SWEEPER 


30,000 


30.000 


5 


PURCHASING 


COPIER 


14,191 


14,191 


5 


RENT BOARD 


COPIER 


I 14.000 


14,000 


3 


SFGH 


NURSE CALL SYSTEM 


16,825 


16,825 


4 


SPGH 


CENTRAL STATION 1 


66,000 


66,000 


4 


SFGH 


LIFEPAK CARDIAC MONITORS ! 


i 10,625 


53,125 


4 


SFGH 


AUTO 1 


20,000 


20,000 


4 


SFGH 


EMG MACHINE 1 


38.000 


38.000 


4 


SFGH 


OPHTHALMIC MICROSCOPE 1 


24,000 


24,000 


4 


SFGH 


SONIC WASHER 1 


29.407 


29,407 


5 



Total 

• May not qualify for lease financing. 



50 753.224 933.974 



16 



Attachment C 

Equipment Approved in FY 1992-93 Budget 

ihat should no< be Lease Financed throogh either 

the S. F. Finance Corporation or Master Vendor Lease Financing Program 









UNIT 


TOTAL 


DEPARTMENT 


EQUIPMENT 


COUNT 


COST 


COSTS 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3,973 


3.973 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3.900 


3.900 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


1 


1,400 


1.400 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


1.900 


1.900 


DPH 


DENTAL CHAIRS 


2 


4.052 


8.104 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3.562 


3362 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


2 


1.600 


3.200 


DPH 


DENTAL STEAM STERILIZER 


5 


4.123 


20.615 


DPH 


MULTIPLEXER 


1 


6,000 


6.000 


DPH 


MULTIPLEXER 


2 


3.444 


6.888 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


2373 


2373 


DPH 


MULTIPLEXER 


12 


3.850 


46.200 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


1 


1,617 


1.617 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


1 


1.282 


1.282 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3.218 


3318 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3,218 


3318 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


1 


1.282 


1382 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3.218 


3318 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


1 


1.282 


1382 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


1 


1.600 


1.600 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3.600 


3.600 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


2.875 


2,875 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


1 


1.880 


1.880 


DPH 


NOISE METER TYPE 1 


1 


4330 


4330 


DPH 


PERSONAL COMPUTER 


1 


3.000 


3.000 


DPH 


LASER PRINTER 


3 


1.000 


3,000 


DPW/BBR 


WORKSTATION 


1 


6.415 


6,415 


DPW/BBR 


TAPE BACKUP SYSTEM 


1 


4,400 


4,400 


DPW/BBR 


WORKSTATION 


9 


3,415 


30.735 


DPW/BBR 


HP LASERJET PRINTER DIP 


8 


1.100 


8300 


DPW/BBR 


HP LASERJET PRINTER HJD 


1 


2.400 


2,400 


DPW/SC&UF 


PORTABLE RESTROOMS 


10 


6375 


62,745 


LHH/CLIN1C 


FURNrrURE-ACCESSORIES 


1 


5.000 


5.000 


LHH/MEDICAL 


FILE CABINET 


1 


237 


237 


LHH/MEDICAL 


OFFICE CHAIRS 


3 


246 


738 


LHH/MEDICAL 


CHAIRS 


5 


105 


525 


LHH/MEDICAL 


IIXUNMUNIATOR, MAMMOGRAM 


1 


1.625 


1.625 


LHH/MEDICAL 


CHAIR, MAMMOGRAPHY 


1 


1350 


1550 


LHH/MEDICAL 


DENTAL X-RAY DEVLPMT UNIT 


1 


2300 


2300 


LHH/MEDICAL 


WANDERGUARD SYSTEM 


1 


4,000 


4,000 


LHH/MEDICAL 


WIDE SCREEN TV 


I 


1.600 


1.600 



n 



17 



Attachment C (cont) 









UNIT 


TOTAL 


DEPARTMENT 


EQUIPMENT 


COUNT 


COST 


COSTS 


LHH/MEDICAL 


ADH EQUIPMENT 




800 


800 


LHHAtEDICAL 


OFFICE PANEL SYSTEMS 




1.670 


1.670 


LHH/MEDICAL 


REFRIGERATOR 




800 


800 


LHH/MEDICAL 


OFFICE CHAIR 




400 


400 


LHH>fUR5ING 


GUERNEY, PATIENT 




3.000 


9.000 


LHH/NURSING 


WHEELCHAIR, WIDE RECLINER 




1.250 


3.750 


LHH/MJRSING 


LEFT. PATIENT ELECTRIC 


30 


1.500 


45.000 


LHH/NURSING 


WHEELCHAIR, 24' EXTR 


1 


2.000 


2.000 


LHH/NURSENG 


LEFEPAK 9 SHOCK ADVISORY 


5 


1.434 


7.170 


LHH/NURSING 


LDFEPAK 9 DEFTByMONITOR 


5 


7.145 


35.725 


LHH/NURSING 


WHEELCHAIR, 22' EXTR 


2 


1.750 


3300 


LHH/NURSING 


CART, MEDICATION 


2 


1.200 


2,400 


LHH/NURSING 


BED, ELECTRIC 


2 


2300 


4,600 


LHHOPS 


PANELS & OFFICE SYS 


1 


4,883 


4,883 


LHHOPS 


COMPUTER, MACINTOSH 


1 


2.400 


2.400 


LHHOPS 


MIRROR DRTVE, MIS 


1 


5.425 


5,425 


LHHOPS 


PANELS & OFFICE SYS 


I 


1,670 


1,670 


LHHOPS 


OVEN, ROAST & HOLD 


1 


5.425 


5.425 


LHHOPS 


SKILLET, TILTING 


3 


6310 


19330 


LHHOPS 


EVACUATION CHAIRS 


4 


1300 


6.000 


LHHOPS 


RADIO, MOTOROLA 2- WAY 


1 


6300 


6300 


LHHOPS 


CARTS. LINEN DISTRIBUTION 


15 


500 


7300 


LHHOPS 


UNIT, BATTERY CHARGER 


1 


5.000 


5,000 


LHHOPS 


TRACK SYSTEM, DRAPERY 


8 


6.000 


48,000 


LHHOPS 


WASHER, PRESSURE 


2 


1,800 


3,600 


LHHOPS 


VACUUM. WET/DRY 


1 


1.800 


1,800 


LHHOPS 


FLOOR, BURNISHER, AUTO 


1 


3,000 


3.000 


LHHOPS 


CHIPPER/SHREDDER 


1 


5.600 


5.600 


LHHOPS 


VEHICLE, UTILITY 


2 


8300 


17.000 


LHHOPS 


CARTS, TOWING 


12 


2,700 


32.400 


POLICE 


BULLET TRAP 


1 


8,100 


8,100 


POLICE 


HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRAP 


1 


1.800 


1300 


POLICE 


PA SYSTEM 


1 


1.100 


1.100 


POLICE 


COMPUTER & PRINTER 


1 


2300 


2300 


POLICE 


VCR & TV MONITOR 


1 


2.000 


2.000 


POLICE 


SCANTRON 


1 


2^00 


2^00 


SPGH 


SPECTRA RADIOS 


7 


2,035 


14,245 


SPGH 


TAPE CABINETS 


1 


4.000 


4,000 


SPGH 


ELECTROCARDIOGRAPH 


10 


6.441 


64.410 


SPGH 


BEDSIDE MONITOR MODULES 


6 


2,770 


16.620 


SPGH 


GURNEYS 


13 


2,732 


35320 


Total 




247 


244.088 


721330 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

Ttem3 -File 190-93-1 

Item: Hearing to consider legislation authorizing the Department 

of Parking and Traffic to take all necessary steps to replace 
damaged and/or defective parking meter equipment. 

Comments: 1. The Department of Parking and Traffic reports that, in the 

recent past, the City's parking meters have increasingly been 
vandalized and the coin boxes burglarized. 

Ms. Kathyrn Hile of the Department of Parking and Traffic 
(DPT) reports that the City owns two types of parking meters: 
approximately 16,000 "P.O.M." meters and approximately 
5,000 "Duncan" meters. In 1992, a new technique was 
apparently discovered to burglarize the P.O.M. meters, 
resulting in a significant loss of parking meter and parking 
citation revenues. DPT has estimated that the damage to the 
City's P.O.M. parking meters resulted in lost revenues to the 
City of approximately $1,007,000 in meter revenues and 
$982,000 in citation revenues, or a total of $1,989,000, between 
July 1, 1992 and December 31, 1992. 

2. Ms. Hile indicates that DPT expects to replace the P.O.M. 
meters by the end of February, 1993, at an estimated cost of 
approximately $1.2 million. The new P.O.M. meters have 
already been purchased using lease purchase revenue bonds 
issued in 1992. Ms. Hile states that the new P.O.M. meters 
cannot be vandalized due to their superior technology (the 
P.O.M. meters which were vandalized were 12-15 years old). 

3. Ms. Hile states that, in the last two to three weeks, DPT has 
observed that the Duncan meters are also being vandalized, 
by having the domes removed from the meters, apparently in 
response to the inaccessibility of the new P.O.M. meters. Ms. 
Hile states that the Duncan meters' coin boxes cannot be 
accessed by removing the heads of the meters, indicating that 
the recent damage has resulted only from vandalism, rather 
than theft. However, the Duncan meters cannot accept coins 
in this condition and the City is unable to enforce expired 
meter violations at these meters. 

4. Ms. Hile indicates that the revenue losses to the City 
resulting from the recent vandalism of the Duncan meters 
cannot be estimated at this time, since the damage has begun 
only recently. 

5. DPT wishes to purchase 3,600 new heads for the Duncan 
meters, at an estimated cost of $182 each, and 1,800 internal 
mechanisms ("expired" flags, etc.) at a unit cost of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



approximately $100 each, for total estimated cost to replace 
and secure the Duncan meters of approximately $835,200. 
However, DPT does not have funds available to pay these 
costs, and has therefore requested that the new parking 
meters be included in the equipment which the City will 
lease-purchase in 1992-93 (see Comment 6). 

6. The Budget Committee is currently considering a proposed 
ordinance (Item 2 of this report, File 170-93-1) which would 
authorize the issuance of lease revenue bonds for the 
purchase of equipment by the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation on behalf of the City. At the Budget Committee 
meeting of January 20, 1993, a proposal was made to include 
the parking meter equipment proposed by DPT in the 
equipment purchases which would be made with the 
proposed lease revenue bonds. 

If the proposed parking meter equipment is not included in 
the equipment to be purchased by the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation, a supplemental appropriation would be 
required in order to replace the parking meters. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

Items 4 and 5 - Files 102-92-13 and 101-92-31 

Note: These items were continued at the January 20, 1993 Budget Committee 
Meeting. 



Department: 



Items: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office of Children Youth and their Families 
(MOCYF) 

Ordinance (Item 4, File 102-92-13) to amend the 1992-93 
Annual Salary Ordinance to reflect the addition of five 
positions. 

Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance (Item 5, File 101-92- 
31) to fund the five new positions. 

$70,804 

Children's Fund for Fiscal Year 1992-93 

The proposed ordinance (File 102-92-13) to amend 1992-93 
Annual Salary Ordinance would create five new permanent 
positions as follows: 









Maximum 






Biweekly 


Annual 






Salary 


Salary at 


No. 


Classification 


Range 


Top Step 


1 


9786 Assistant to Mayor III 


$1,826-1,916 


$50,008 


1 


9782 Assistant to Mayor I 


1,490-1,564 


40,820 


1 


9740 Staff Assist. IV, Spec. Pjt. 


1,682-1,682 


43,900 


1 


1632 Sr. Account Clerk 


1,136-1,375 


35,888 


1 


1422 Jr. Clerk Typist 


866-1,047 


27,327 




Total 




$197,943 



The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 
101-92-31) would fund the proposed five new positions for nine 
biweekly payperiods from February 25, through June 30, 1993 
at Step one (all new positions) plus fringe benefits as follows: 



Permanent Salaries - Misc. 
Mandatory Fringe Benefits* 
Total 



$63,000 

7.804 

$70,804 



*Mandatory Fringe Benefits exclude Health Insurance 
which will not begin until August, 1993 in FY 1993-94 and 
Retirement for the Asst. to Mayor classifications that are 
not eligible for Retirement benefits. 



ISOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



The proposed source of funds is the Children's Fund 
including $24,062 in unappropriated revenue of the 
Children's Fund and $46,742 previously appropriated for 
Other Contractual Services and designated for 
administration of the Children's Fund. 

Proposition J, commonly known as the "Children's 
Amendment", that was approved by the electorate in 
November, 1991, amended Section 6.415 of the Charter to 
require the establishment of the San Francisco Children's 
Fund. The San Francisco Children's Fund augments the 
fiscal year 1990-91 or 1991-92 (whichever was greater) level of 
expenditures for services and programs for children by 
requiring that the City set aside a certain percentage of 
property tax revenues in the Children's Fund to fund 
additional services for children. 

The Children's Fund for Fiscal Year 1992-93 is 
approximately $5.7 million. The 1992-93 Children's Fund 
included $3,275,126 for contractual services for the purchase 
of children's services from community based organization 
contractors. As a result of a Request for Proposal process, the 
MOCYF reviewed 170 Statement of Intents and 124 Final 
Proposals in order to select 40 community based organization 
contractors. These activities were performed with a staff of 11 
plus an ad-hoc (volunteer) advisory panel of 45 members. 
Drawing up the contracts, continuing monitoring of the 
contracts and processing payments to the contractors must 
be performed solely by MOCYF staff. The contracts were 
scheduled to begin on January 1, 1993. Some of the contracts 
and some agreements with other City departments have been 
finalized but most of the contracts and agreements are still 
being negotiated. MOCYF indicates that the existing staff is 
working overtime to finalize the remaining contracts and 
agreements but is counting on the proposed new staff to 
assist in finalizing the contracts and agreements, as well as 
establishing the monitoring, reporting and reimbursement 
systems for all of the contracts and agreements. 

The Controller's Office estimates that the ad valorem tax 
revenue for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 Children's Fund will be 
approximately $13.2 million. The Children's Services Plan 
for 1993-94 allocates $7,288,524 of this $13.2 million for 
contractual services. Thus, the total MOCYF budget and the 
allocation for contractual services for 1993-94 are more than 
double the 1992-93 funding level ($13.2 for 1993-94 versus $5.7 
for 1992-93 and $7,288,524 versus $3,275,126). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



The MOCYF currently has a total City funded staff often (one 
position is funded through the Mayor's Office and the other 
nine are funded by the Children's Fund). Six of the existing 
City funded staff are permanent positions including the 
Director (9792-Asst. to Mayor VI), a Deputy Director (9790- 
Asst. to Mayor V), two Grant Coordinators (9786-Asst. to 
Mayor III), a Child Care Coordinator (9784-Asst. to Mayor II) 
and a Secretary (1446-Secretary II). Four of the existing City 
funded positions are full time temporary positions. The 
MOCYF also has some grant funded positions and unpaid 
volunteers and interns. 

Three of the four City funded temporary positions would 
become permanent positions if the proposed five new 
positions are approved resulting in a total staff of 12 positions 
(10 existing permanent positions plus five new permanent 
positions less three of the old temporary positions that would 
become three of the new permanent positions). 

The proposed five new position functional titles and duties 
and responsibilities are as follows: 

Grant Fiscal Coordinator (9786 Assistant to Mavor UD 
This position will be responsible for developing financial 
reporting systems to disburse Children's Fund monies, for 
the financial monitoring and implementation of financial 
systems for all Children's Fund grant (contract) activities 
including those administered by other City departments that 
are funded by the Children's Fund, as well as community 
based organizations. 

Planning Coordinator (9782 Assistant to Mavor D 

The Planning Coordinator is responsible for developing the 
annual Children's Services Plan (CSP) that identifies the 
goals and priorities for the Children's Fund, conducting the 
initial stages of implementing the annual CSP including 
developing the Request for Proposals, coordination with other 
City departments that will be implementing CSP activities 
and will assist in the development and implementation of a 
long range Strategic Plan for Children's Services. 

Special Proie rts Coordina tor (9740 Staff Assist IV. Spec Pit) 
The Special Projects Coordinator's primary responsibility is 
the coordination and/or implementation of special projects 
related to the Children's Fund. Additionally, the Special 
Projects Coordinator will assist the Department Director with 
issues related to the administration and implementation of 
special projects, planning and policy issues. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



Department Accountant (1632 Sr. Account Clerk) 
This position is responsible for reviewing and processing 
invoices for payment from grantees, for completing other 
internal accounting forms, maintaining financial records, 
establishing and maintaining cash internal controls and 
liaison with other City departments that provide children's 
services funded by the Children's Fund activities, regarding 
their financial operations. 

Receptio nist/Gen eral Office (1422 Jr. Clerk Tvpist) 
The 1422 Jr. Clerk Typist is responsible for routine clerical 
and office work including answering phones, typing letters, 
forms and notices and other general office clerical duties. 

These items were continued by the Budget Committee in 
order to consider alternative means of staffing the MOCYF 
such as transferring positions from other City departments 
that provide baseline children's services to the MOCYF. The 
Mayor's Office reports that, budgets and staff of other 
baseline children's services departments will be examined 
and analyzed to determine if some administrative positions 
can be transferred to MOCYF. The Mayor's Office indicates 
that their examination and analysis has not been completed 
as of the writing of this report. The Mayor's Office will report 
their findings at the January 27, 1993 Budget Committee 
Meeting. 

Approval of the proposed ordinances is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

Item 6 -File 101-92-23 

Note: This item was rereferred to the Budget Committee. 

Department San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) 



Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating $1.4 
million for two capital improvement projects to renovate 
Wards 14 and 15 (the SFGH Business Office) and the 
Emergency Room/Outpatient Registration areas. 

$1.4 million 

SFGH Capital Reserve 

The Mayor's budget for FY 1992-93 included $160,000 for 
planning of an SFGH capital project to renovate Wards 14 
and 15 at SFGH. SFGH had estimated that the total capital 
project would cost an estimated $1.6 million. Subsequently, in 
approving the City's budget for FY 1992-93, the Board of 
Supervisors funded $1.4 million for this project as a General 
Fund Reserve, subject to future appropriation by 
supplemental appropriation ordinance. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would provide 
funding for the renovation of the Business Offices in order to 
increase staff efficiency and productivity by improving space 
utilization. The Business Offices include Patient Accounting 
(Billing, Credit and Collections), Accounts Receivable, 
Inpatient Eligibility, Department of Social Services Eligibility 
Workers, Revenue Enhancement Units, General Accounting 
and Payroll. The areas occupied by these Business Offices 
were formerly hospital wards and still contain fixtures such 
as dishwasher, steel kitchen cabinets, bathtubs, and shower 
stalls. Proposed renovations include the installation of new 
lighting fixtures, computer and telephone cable conduits, 
handicapped access to restrooms and public areas and two 
cashier windows in the Ward 24 patient billing area 
(currently patients must walk across the street to another 
building to pay their bills). The proposed renovations would 
also double the space occupied by the Department of Social 
Services Eligibility Workers that process applications for 
Medi-Cal. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would provide 
funding for the renovation of the outpatient and emergency - 
registration and admitting areas to expand the capacity to 
register, admit patients and perform financial interviews 
and assist with eligibility. The registration unit interviews 



BOARD OF ST IPEKVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



Comments: 



and registers an average of over 800 out-patients daily and 
admits an average of over 50 patients to the inpatient units 
daily. The registration and eligibility workers currently 
perform their duties in areas that were designed to provide 
security but do not provide privacy for confidential interviews 
of patients and completion of Medi-Cal applications. The 
proposed renovation project would change the design of the 
registration area to provide greater confidentiality for 
financial interviews. According to SFGH, these 
improvements will result in increases in hospital revenues 
by increasing the number of patients eligible for Medi-Cal, 
increasing the ability to identify Medicare and other paying 
patients in the emergency room and improving the Medi-Cal 
eligibility efforts in the outpatient clinics. The SFGH 
estimates of increased revenues totalling $2.9 million for FY 
1992-93 ($1,476,000 from renovation to the Business Office and 
$1,400,000 from renovations to outpatient and emergency - 
registration and admitting areas) is attached (Attachment 1). 

However, the Budget Analyst concludes that the relationship 
between the physical renovations of the proposed capital 
improvement projects and any improved efficiencies which 
may result in increased revenues to the City cannot be 
precisely determined at this time. Therefore, the Budget 
Analyst cannot confirm that the SFGH increased revenue 
estimates will be achieved. 

The SFGH's preliminary cost estimate for these renovation 
projects is attached (Attachment 2). 

1. SFGH reports that determinations have not yet been made 
as to what portions of the construction work will be 
performed by SFGH maintenance staff and what portions 
will be contracted. Therefore, $643,500 for construction work 
to the Business Offices (including $505,000 for Open Office 
Area Ward 14/15, $16,000 for moving cost, $13,500 for Interim 
DSS Unit/Ward 82, $19,000 for asbestos work and $90,000 for 
project contingencies) and $496,500 for construction work to 
the outpatient registration, emergency room waiting and 
admitting areas (including $215,000 for the emergency room, 
$216,500 for outpatient registration and admitting areas and 
$65,000 for project contingencies) should be reserved pending 
determinations regarding use of maintenance staff or outside 
contractors, and if outside contractors are to be used, 
selection of the contractors and their MBE/WBE status. 

2. The Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) has 
not endorsed the proposed capital improvement projects but 
also does not reject these projects. According to the CLAC's 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

report on the proposed capital project, "the CIAC does not 
object to the passage of the supplemental appropriation. We 
would reiterate, however, that there are a multiplicity of 
projects of higher priority from a Citywide point of view 
which we would prefer to have been funded. 

3. In that connection, the CAO has provided the attached 
memorandum (Attachment 3) showing the projects which 
the CIAC believe take precedence over the proposed projects 
to renovate Wards 14 and 15. According to the CIAC, almost 
all projects recommended for funding by the CIAC were in 
Priority 1, Minor repairs and routine facilities maintenance 
projects, in contrast to the proposed SFGH capital 
improvements which the CIAC rated as Priority 10, 
Improvement of existing building interiors . 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance to reserve a total of $1,140,000 for construction 
($643,500 for construction work to the Business Offices and 
$496,500 for construction work to the outpatient registration, 
emergency room waiting and admitting areas) pending 
determinations as to what portions of the construction work 
will be performed by SFGH maintenance staff and what 
portions will be contracted and if outside contractors are to be 
used, selection of the contractors and their MBE/WBE status. 

2. Approval the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance as amended is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Page 1 of 2 



ON SITE DSS MEDI-CAL UNIT EXPANSION AND BUSINESS OFFICE 

RENOVATION 



REVENUE COSTS CONTRIBUTION- 

SI, 476,000. $900,000. S 576,000. 



1. The Revenue is derived by consolidating the on-site DSS 
Kedi-Cal unit with the Hospital's Inpatient Eligibility 
Unit and support staff on Ward 15 in space currently 
occupied by Payroll Department. Additional operating 
efficiencies will be achieved by remodeling the old 
patient ward "14" occupied by the Billing Department and 
must be done to accommodate the Payroll Department being 
dislocated by DSS. No physical improvement or 
maintenance has been done on these wards since patients 
were moved out in 1971. 

2. Effectively, this will improve current Inpatient Medi-Cal 
application denial rate by 25%. We know that a minimum 
of 25% of the Medi-Cal applications taken become problems 
due to what we term "administrative errors". By 
consolidating the workers, providing them with additional 
clerical support already available on Ward 15 and being 
actively involved in the case processing (eg. getting 
medical records on the Disability Applications in a 
timely manner) we can achieve this goal. The calculation 
is as follows: 

960 denials per year, reduced by 25% = 240 approved cases 

240 cases x ALOS 6 days X $825.00 per day = $1,188,000 

Adjust for TAR denials = <$297,000> 

** Net collection potential iB $891,000. 

3. Improvements in the Billing Department will facilitate 
the TAR and Claims processing which will, conservatively, 
achieve an additional $700.00 per billed/paid Medi-Cal 
day for our Disproportionate Share allowance. This 
brings the net contribution up by over $585,000. For a 
total net collection contribution of $1,476,000. 

4. Costs are ONE TIME physical space reconfiguration, wiring 
for computers and computer equipment. 

5. Space is available by relocating Payroll to the Billing 
Department on Ward 14. Partitioned office system 
installation could be accomplished in 2 or 3 months. 

6. Net contribution is annual and conservative. Benefit 
returns will increase every year. 



28 



•-1 l Lcicumeri 
Fage 2 of 



7. An additional S50G,OCO ir. salary transfer.'; to the State 

has beer. realized by the transfer of 10 bos; 
Eligibility Workers to the DSS payroll in 3992. 



EMERGENCY - OUTPATIENT -BUSINESS OFEICF. 

FINANCIAL COUNSELLING 

RENOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

t'EOBO PROJECT) 



REVENUE COSTS CONTRIBUTION 

$1,400,000. $700,000. $700,000. 



o Revenue is derived from and based upon analysis of 
Revenue Reports and research performed well after 
the fact of registration to determine that 
opportunities are missed at the time the patient is 
available, but staff was unable to interview 
because of lack of appropriate space and 
f aci litiss. 

1. Increased Medi-Cal Eligibility in the ER from 
10% to 15% = net collections of $465,000. 

2. Increased identification of Medicare patients 
in the ER from 9% to 15% = net collections of 

$110,000. 

3 . Increased identifications of insurance and 
workers comp in the ER for 4% to 8% ■= net 
collections of $320,000. 

4. Increase Outpatient Clinic Medi-Cal 
Eligibility for 29% to 35% - net collections 
of $475,000. 

5. Improved Financial Counselling and additional 
Cashier's Office in the Business Office will 
improve "Bad Check" recovery to recover a 
minimum of $30,000. and facilitate patient 
payment handling. 

6. Totals for all programs are conservatively 
estimated at $1,400,000. in net collections. 

o Costs include: 

1. Complete renovation of the Outpatient and 
Emergency Department Registration areas to 
allow for confidential patient interviews. 

2. Minor remodeling for the new cashier's office 
in Business Office on Ward 24. 

o These are ONE TIME expenditures. Annual 
contributions will grow as programs evolvo. 



29 



SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL 
BUSINESS OFFICE/DSS 



Atcai 
Page 



-.er.c 2 
of 2" 



DESIGN/PROJECT MANAGEMENT 
Design 15% 

Construction Inspection/Admin. 4% 
SFGH Project Management/Contract 8% 
Permit 1.5% 



Subtot; 



SI 25,000 
S3S.000 
S72.000 
SI 3,500 

S255.500 



CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 
Open Office Area Ward 1 4/1 5: 
Electrical & Lighting 
Computer Cable 
Sheet Vinyl Flooring/Carpet 
Painting 

Demolition & Patch 
Modular Work Stations 
Handicap-Accessible Toilets 



S60.000 

S20.000 

S50.000 

S50.000 

SI 5,000 

S21 0,000 

SI 00,000 

Subtotal: 5505,000 



Moving Cost: 



Subtot; 



SI 6.000 



Interim DSS Unit/Ward 82: 
Computer Connections 
Workstations 



Subtotc 



S3.500 
S1 0,000 
SI 3,500 



Asbestos 
Abatement 
Industrial Hygienist 



Subtotal 



S 15,000 

S4.000 

S1 9,000 



TOTAL PROJECT COST 
PROJECT CONTINGENCY 



S81 0,000 
S90.000 



TOTAL: 



SS00.000 



30 



-.z tachment 2 
'32.e 2 of r 



SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL 
EMERGENCY ROOM/OUTPATIENT REGISTRATION 

DESIGN/PROJECT MANAGEMENT 

Design 15% S 105.000 

Contruction Inspecilon/Admin 4% $28,000 

SFGH Project Managment/Contract $60,000 

Permit 1.5% $10,500 



Subtotal: $203,500 

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 
Emergeny Room 

Gyp. Bd. Walls $27,000 

Acoustical Ceiling $10,000 

Painting SI 5.000 

— Demolition & Patch $7. GOO 

Vinyl Flooring $9,000 

Fire Shutters $10,000 

Mechanical $20,000 

Lighting $7,000 

Electrical $12,000 

Communications Cabling $6,000 

Handicap-Accessible Toilets $43,000 

Work Surfaces/Casework $49,000 



Subtotal: $215,000 

OPD Registration and Admitting 

Gyp. Bd. Walls $ 1 5,000 

Acoustical Ceiling $6,000 

Painting $7,000 

Demolition & Patch $7,000 

Vinyl Flooring $ 1 1 .000 

Fire Shutters $15,000 

Mechanical $18,000 

Lighting $12,000 

Electrical $10,000 

Communications Cabling $7,000 

Handicap-Accessible Toilets S48.500 

Work Surfaces/Casework $60,000 



Subtotal: S216.500 

TOTAL PROJECT COST S635.000 

PROJECT CONTINGENCY S55.000 



TOTAL: S700.000 



31 



rage 1 or j 




CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 



;;dolf Nother.berg 

-■.'I Administrative Of(u 

r.pital lmproVfrrn.nl Adv 



iw.ii.onrt J. Baxter. Ph.D 
: :Wtor of Health 

L cianBiazej 

: rector of Planning 

Mary Burns 
C-eneral Managei of 
Recreation* Park Deparim 

Jrfm Cribhs 

Director of Public Works 

Anthony DeLncchi 
Director ol Properly 

Thomas J. Elzey 
C-eneral Manager of 
Public Utilities 

Edward Harrington 
Controller 

Michael Huerta 

Port Director 

Louis A.Tnrpen 
Director of Airport.- 

Sieve Nelson 
St.tff Director 



MEMORANDUM 



January 12, 1992 

It -/ 

THROUGH: Rudolf . Nothenberg , CIAC Chair 

TO: Merlin Zimmerly, Budget Analyst's Office 

FROM: Steve Nelson, CIAC Staff Director *?'( 

SUBJECT: SF General Hospital Capital Projects 

At yesterday's meeting of the Board of Supervisors, 
some questions were raised as to CIAC priorities for 
funding and how the projects requested by San Francisco 
General Hospital fell within those priorities. The 
purpose of this memo is to provide you with some 
background information related to those questions. 

CIAC Recommendations Versus Board Approval 
The CIAC ' s recommended level of funding is just that, a 
recommendation. The Mayor and the Board have the 
ability to add, change or delete funding for any 
projects which departments have requested or to add new 
projects which may not have been requested. In this 
particular case, the Finance Committee felt that the SF 
General Hospital projects were of a high enough 
priority to warrant funding. The Finance Committee 
could have simply added funding for these projects to 
the budget, something that is well within their rights 
to do. The CIAC would not have gotten involved, unless 
the Finance Committee requested information at the 
time. It is because the projects were included in a 
reserve account, and then submitted as a supplemental 
appropriation (required to appropriate a reserve 
account) , that the CIAC letter to the Mayor, Board and 
Controller had to be drafted. 



CIAC Priorities 

The CIAC has established the following priorities for 

funding: 

1 Minor repairs and routine facilities maintenance 
projects. 



CIAC. Room 2W. City Hall. Sim Fr. 
Telephone (415) SS4-4KS1 



32 



rage 2 of 3 



2 Health and safety projects. 

3 Preservation of building exteriors. 

4 Protection of property. 

5 Preservation of electrical and mechanical sysrems which will 
result in future cost avoidance. 

6 Preservation of interiors resulting in future cost 
avoidance . 

7 Rehabilitation of mechanical and electrical systems. 

8 Rehabilitation of architectural and structural components. 

9 Improvement of existing facilities, with the exception of 
interior improvements. 

10 Improvement of existing building interiors. 

11 Construction of new facilities. 

In the 1992-93 budget process, the CIAC recommended projects 
almost exclusively in priority 1. The projects which were 
recommended outside of this priority were: 

Priority 2 Underground storage tank replacement and asbestos 
abatement. Projects in these areas were 
recommended for funding due to upcoming legal 
requirements (underground tanks) and existing 
serious hazards (asbestos abatement) . 

Priority 10 Disabled access surveys and modifications to 

correct deficiencies. These projects were funded 
to allow the City to begin to come into compliance 
with requirements of the ADA. 

Thus, as you can see, only basic maintenance projects were 
recommended by the CIAC, with the exception of the special needs 
noted above, all of which have legal deadlines pending. 

The Mayor's Office modified these recommendations slightly, 
reducing the amount recommended for SF General Hospital 
Maintenance and instead providing "seed money" for three projects 
at the Hospital, all of which were priority 10 projects. 

The projects in question, funded in a reserve account by the 
Finance Committee, were also given a priority rating of 10 by the 
CIAC, indicating the projects were for improvement of interiors 
of existing facilities. This was done absent any indication of 
the revenue impacts of the projects. However, given the CIAC's 
mission, it is unlikely the revenue impacts would have resulted 
in a much higher priority. 



33 



attachment 3 
Page 3 of 3 



Should you require any additional information on this subject, 
please feel free to contact me at 554-6171. 



34 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

Item 7 -File 161-92-5.1 



Note: This item was rereferred to the Budget Committee at the January 19, 1993 
Board of Supervisors Meeting. 



Department: 
Item: 

Description: 



Comment: 



San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) 

Resolution approving an amendment to the Redevelopment 
Agency's FY 1992-93 budget. 

The proposed resolution would allocate $30,000 from a recent 
bond transaction fee paid to the SFRA to fund a personal 
services contract with a consultant to provide bilingual 
technical services to nonprofit organizations and 24th Street 
merchants as part of the 24th Street Revitalization Project. 

Mr. Bob Gamble of the SFRA reports that the SFRA recently 
received $81,000 from the Webster Tower and Terrace bond 
transaction. $51,000 represents fees past due and $30,000 
represents new fees. The proposed resolution would approve 
an amendment to the SFRA's budget to appropriate $30,000 of 
these revenues. The remaining $51,000 has not yet been 
targeted for a specific purpose. 

1. The SFRA advises that the 24th Street Revitalization 
Committee selected Ms. Rosa Rivera, Chair of the 24th Street 
Physical Improvement and Preservation Subcommittee, as 
the consultant to provide bilingual technical services to 
nonprofit organizations and 24th Street merchants as part of 
the 24th Street Revitalization Project. The SFRA advises that 
Ms. Rivera would be supervised by Ricardo Noguera, 
Planning Coordinator of Mission Economic Development 
Association. Monthly invoices to the SFRA would require Ms. 
Rivera to itemize all community meetings, merchant 
consultations and loan packages. The proposed contract of 
$30,000 would be based on an hourly rate of $24.72 and would 
expire after seven months. 

2. Mr. David Madway, SFRA General Counsel has reviewed 
Ms. Rivera's position as Chair of the 24th Street Physical 
Improvement and Preservation Subcommittee and the 
subject request to contract her services to provide technical 
assistance to nonprofit organizations and 24th Street 
merchants participating in the 24th Street Revitalization 
Project. Mr. Madway advises that it is his opinion that there 
would be no conflict of interest between Ms. Rivera's paid 
consulting position and her committee work related to the 
24th Street Revitalization Project. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

3. Although the contract is with the SFRA, the method of 
payment stipulates that the consultant be directed by and 
work for the 24th Street Revitalization Committee to perform 
seven tasks as referred to in the contract as the scope of 
services (see Attachment). Most of these services deal with 
liaison and coordination of activities which are generally 
performed by committees on a volunteer basis. For example, 
the Citizens Committee on Community Development spends 
each year countless hours as volunteers reviewing proposed 
projects to be included in the Mayor's Community 
Development Program. 

4. The scope of services, however, does identify two items that 
result in actual products. The second listed service activity 
identifies the packaging of five loans but only includes the 
consultant as assisting the Mission Economic Development 
Association with translation services to complete the loan 
packaging. The fifth listed service activity provides for a final 
draft of a strategic plan for both short- and long-term 
planning programs and projects for the revitalization of 24th 
Street to be completed no later than June 15, 1993. 

5. Because the scope of services identifies both a combination 
of tasks that should be divided between the actual need to hire 
an outside consultant and the duties and responsibilities 
normally undertaken by volunteer committees, the SFRA 
should reevaluate the contract scope of services and revise 
such services to include technical services as needed and 
exclude coordination activities normally undertaken by 
volunteer committees such as established for the 24th Street 
Revitalization Project. Under these circumstances the 
Budget Committee should continue this item until the SFRA 
reevaluates the proposed contract scope of services. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed resolution until the San Francisco 
Redevelopment Agency: 

1. Explains why the consultant was selected by and is 
working for the 24th Street Revitalization Committee even 
though the contract is between the San Francisco 
Redevelopment Agency and the consultant; and 

2. Submits a revised contract for consultant services that 
excludes those services normally performed by volunteer 
organizations. 



BOARD OF ST JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Consultant Contract Attachment 

Attachment A 

Scope of Services 



Consultant hereby agrees to work for the 24th Street Revitalization Committee for the 
seven-month period, January through July, 1993. Consultant will perform the following 
activities under the direction of the 24th Street Revitalization Committee and the Mission 
Economic Development Planning Coordinator: 

1. Serve as liaison to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and 
the Mayor's Office of Economic Planning and Development for the 
24th Street Revitalization Committee and the 24th Street Merchants 
Association. Forwards all correspondence from the Redevelopment 
Agency (&/or the Mayor's Office) to the Revitalization Committee and 
24th Street Merchants. 

2. Coordinate the implementation of the 24th Street Small Business 
x Loan Program in cooperation with the Financial Analyst, Mission 

Economic Development Association, as well as the Redevelopment 
Agency and the Mayor's Office of Economic Planning and 
Development. A total of at least five (5) loans will be packaged for this 
loan program during the term of this contract. 

3. Coordinate the implementation of the Community Development 
Investment Fund (property acquisition program) with organizations 
interested in submitting proposals to the Redevelopment Agency for 
funding. Provide technical assistance, as needed, to nonprofit 
applicants to the CDIF. 

4. Coordinate the implementation of the 24th Street Public 
Improvements Project with the Chair of the Revitalization Committee's 
Physical Improvements and Preservation Subcommittee in order to 
ensure that construction starts no later than March, 1993. 

5. Prepare a strategic plan for both short- and long-term planning 
programs and projects for the revitalization of 24th Street. Submit the 
first draft of the strategic plan no later than April 1 , 1993, and the final 
draft no later than June 15, 1993. 

6. Work with the Mission Economic and Cultural Association to 
coordinate marketing and promotion of 24th Street. 

7. Other duties as assigned by the 24th Street Revitalization Committee, 
including grant writing and fundraising for short- and long-term 
programs for the revitalization of 24th Street. 

It is anticipated tht this Scope of Services will require a minimum of 32 
hrs/week. Work must be documented on a monthly invoice, and signed-off by 
the Chair of the Revitalization Committee prior to submission to the Agency for 
payment (see Attachment B).... 

Accepted by: . Date: 



;a-d 00^.0 udiE:£ £661 -\z Nwr i9P0 egg sip :oi aoo-id qh£ uajs.-woad 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

Item 8 - File 101-92-30 

Department: Public Defender 



Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Supplemental appropriation ordinance for permanent 
salaries and related mandatory fringe benefits. 

$220,000 

General Fund General Reserve 

The Public Defender is advising that a current increase in 
the Department's felony caseload is surpassing that which 
had been anticipated when the FY 1992-93 budget was 
prepared. As reported by the Public Defender in November 
1992, each felony attorney has been assigned up to 45 cases, 
and the number of new felony arraignments in the 
Municipal Court has averaged 540 cases per month during 
September and October 1992. Since the Public Defender has 
30 attorneys assigned to felony cases, an average of 18 new 
felony cases per month are assigned to each felony attorney 
which requires the existing caseload to remain at or exceed 
45 cases per felony attorney. 

According to the Public Defender, a caseload averaging 45 
cases per felony attorney (last year each felony attorney 
carried an average of 38 felony cases) exceeds the ethical 
limits allowed under the Canons of Professional Ethics of 
both the American Bar Association and the State Bar of 
California. However, Mr. Randall Difantorum an attorney 
with the State Bar of California advised the Budget Analyst 
that there is no specific caseload that determines an ethical 
limit. Mr. Difantorum stated that under Section 3-110 of the 
State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, the responsible 
attorney must decide whether or not the number of cases 
assigned would result in the failure to act competently and 
with reasonable diligence. In addition, Ms. Linda Linnell of 
the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice Section 
advised the Budget Analyst that the American Bar 
Association has established no specific caseload limit that 
would determine an ethical limit. 

The Public Defender advises that a 45 felony caseload makes 
it impossible for his attorneys to provide effective assistance to 
indigent defendants as is required by the Sixth Amendment 
to the United States Constitution. Under these 
circumstances, the Public Defender advised the Presiding 
Judge of the Municipal Court in mid-October that the Public 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



Defender could not continue to administer all of the newly 
assigned felony cases. 

In response, the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court 
declared that 20 felony cases per week would be assigned to 
private attorneys, the cost of which would be shared by the 
Municipal and Superior Courts for conflict attorneys (see 
Comment 3). (Conflict attorneys are outside attorneys hired 
by the Courts for felony cases having multiple defendants of 
which the Public Defender may represent only one of the 
defendants). 

The Public Defender reports that if unpaid leaves for four 
attorneys and a proposed four day furlough for 58 attorneys 
were eliminated, the savings of which totals $220,000, the 
existing and projected number of felony cases including the 
20 cases per week being assigned to private attorneys could be 
absorbed by his Office during the current fiscal year. 

The Public Defender has provided the following budget of the 
proposed supplemental appropriation which covers the 
requested amount of $220,000 for additional Permanent 
Salary monies for the period from February 15, 1992 through 
June 30, 1992: 

Provide Funds for Four Attorneys Who Are 
Presently required to be on Unpaid Leave In Order to 
Balance the Public Defender's Budget: 

1 8182 Head Attorney ($8,796 per month x 4.5 months) $39,582 
1 8180 Principal Attorney ($8,178 per month x 4.5 months) 36,801 
1 8178 Senior Attorney ($6,727 per month x 3 months) 20,181 

1 8176 Trial Attorney ($5,670 per month x 3 months) 17.010 

Subtotal $113,574 

Provide Full Funding for 58 Positions Which Are 

Presently Required to Take a 4-day Furlough During 

1992-93 in Order to Balance the Public Defender's Budget 

Public Defender ($472.50 per day x 4 days) $ 1,890 

Chief Attorney I ($450.00 per day x 4 days) 1,800 

Attorney (9 x $219.90 per day x 4 days) 7,916 

Trial Attorney (14 x $260.70 x 4 days) 14,599 

Senior Attorney (13 x $309.30 x 4 days) 16,084 

Principal Attorney (13 x $376.00 x 4 days) 19,552 

Head Attorney (7 x $404.40x4 days) 1L323 

Subtotal 73,164 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 47,169 

Less Other Savings from the Public Defender's 1992-93 Budget (13.907) 

Total $220,000 

BOARD O F SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



1 


8196 


1 


8193 


9 


8174 


14 


8176 


13 


8178 


13 


8180 


7 


8182 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



Comments: 1. Based on an October, 1992 report of the Budget Analyst 

entitled "Analysis of Conflict-of-interest Cases for the 
Representation of Indigent Clients", the average cost per case 
for outside attorneys is $881. In comparison, Mr. Peter 
Keane of the Office of the Public Defender advises that the 
average cost per felony case administered by the Public 
Defender is $330 which is based on actual felony cases 
administered by his Department over the last three years. 
Thus, the per case savings of using Public Defender attorneys 
to defend felony cases is $551 ($881 less $330) per case. 

2. A comparison of the current and projected costs of the 
Public Defender with outside attorneys hired by the 
Municipal and Superior to administer 20 felony cases per 
week for the 19-week period from mid-October 1992 through 
February 1993 is as follows: 





Average Cost 
Per Case 


No. of New 
Cases Per Week 


Number 
of Weeks 


Total 
Cost 


Outside Attorneys 


$881 


20 


19 


$334,780 


Public Defender 


330 


20 


19 


125,400 


Difference 


$551 






$209,380 



3. As previously noted, the estimated cost ($334,780) to retain 
outside attorneys would be paid by the Municipal and 
Superior Court in order to reimburse conflict attorneys. 
According to Mr. Mr. Gordon Park-Li of the Municipal Court 
and Ms. Kate Harrison of the Superior Court, a supplemental 
appropriation will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors to 
fund such increased costs of retaining outside attorneys. 

4. The Sheriff advises that the additional funds needed by the 
Public Defender cannot be financed from monies previously 
set aside in the General Fund Litigation Reserve and recently 
appropriated to the Sheriff for additional staff and programs 
to alleviate jail overcrowding (Files 101-92-17, 101-92-19 and 
102-92-9). The Sheriff believes that the U. S. Court-appointed 
Special Master would not consider the use of such funds to be 
eligible to relieve the caseload limitations in the Office of the 
Public Defender. If such funds were eligible, then the subject 
General Fund request of the Public Defender might instead 
be financed from that portion of the General Fund Litigation 
Reserve monies previously appropriated to the Sheriff to 
alleviate jail overcrowding, if the work to be accomplished by 
the Public Defender would result in some reduced costs to the 
Sheriff. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



5. According to the Public Defender, the subject 
appropriation request for $220,000 would provide sufficient 
additional felony attorney staff time to eliminate the need for 
the County to retain private, outside attorneys during the 19- 
week period from mid-February through June 1993. Based 
on the costs of the prior 19-week period (see Comment No. 2), 
it is estimated that the cost of outside attorneys for this 
requested 19-week period would also be $334,780 or an 
estimated $114,780 greater than the proposed request of 
$220,000. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance. The Budget Committee may wish to inquire as to 
the potential use of funding sources other than the General 
Fund General Reserve. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

Items 9 and 10 - Files 101-92-26 and 102-92-11 

Note: The proposed legislation concerns the reclassification of and funding 
for two positions in the Superior Court. However, the Superior and 
Municipal Courts are submitting an Amendment of the Whole that 
requests the reclassification of and funding for only one position in the 
Superior Court. The following report is based on the Amendment of the 
Whole. 

Department: Superior and Municipal Courts 

Items: Item 9 (File 101-92-26) is a supplemental appropriation 

ordinance to fund the increased salary of the proposed position 
reclassification. 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Item 10 (File 102-92-11) is an ordinance to amend the Annual 
Salary Ordinance to reclassify one position in the Superior 
Court. 

$4,656 

Reappropriation of excess salary savings in the Superior Court 
Permanent Salaries account. 

The proposed ordinance (File 102-92-11) to amend the Annual 
Salary Ordinance would reclassify one Superior Court position 
as follows: 



Action Classification 

Delete 0555 Executive Officer 

Add 0555 Chief Executive Officer 

Proposed Annual Salary Increase 



Biweekly 

Salary 

Range 

$3,263-3,777 

3,653-4,229 



Maximum 
Salary at 
Top Step 
$98,580 
110.377 

$11,797 



The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101- 
92-26) would reappropriate monies in the Superior Court's 
Permanent Salary account that represent salary savings in 
excess of the Superior Court's 1992-93 budgeted requirement 
for salary savings. The proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance would fund the $4,656 in increased salary of the 
reclassified position at the top step for 10.3 biweekly 
payperiods from February 8, through June 30, 1993. The 
Superior and Municipal Courts intend to fill this position at 
the top step. 

Pursuant to the 1991 Trial Court Realignment Act, the 
Superior and Municipal Courts have been in the process of 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

reorganizing into one entity in accordance with the 
Coordination Plan submitted to the State in 1992. The 
Coordination Plan calls for establishing a Chief Executive 
Officer to oversee the reorganization of the two courts into one 
entity. 

The Superior and Municipal Courts propose that the existing 
Executive Officer (department head) position of the Superior 
Court (that is currently filled on a temporary basis) be 
upgraded to Chief Executive Officer of the combined Superior 
and Municipal Courts. The proposed upgraded Chief Executive 
Officer would be responsible for both the previous duties of the 
Executive Officer of the Superior Court plus additional duties 
related to administering the combined Superior and Municipal 
Courts. The existing Clerk/ Administrator (department head) 
position for the Municipal Court would not change. 

The proposed reclassification would change the title of the 
Executive Officer of the Superior Court to the title of Chief 
Executive Officer. According to the Superior and Municipal 
Courts, the Chief Executive Officer position will entail a larger 
scope of responsibilities over the combined courts than the 
existing Executive Officer position that is only responsible for 
the administration of a single court and therefore, should be 
compensated at a higher salary rate. As previously stated, the 
annual salary of the Chief Executive Officer position would 
increase by $11,797 from $98,580 to $110,377 at the top step. 

Comments: 1. The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court states that the 

proposed upgraded Chief Executive Officer position is critical 
to the coordination and combining of the Superior and 
Municipal Courts into one entity. According to the Presiding 
Judge, the Chief Executive Officer will be responsible for 
continuing the reorganization of the Superior and Municipal 
Courts in order to comply with the requirements of the 1991 
Trial Court Realignment Act. 

2. The Superior and Municipal Courts report that a candidate 
for the proposed 0555 Chief Executive Officer position has been 
selected and is expected to begin employment on February 8, 
1993, subject to approval of this legislation by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

3. The Superior and Municipal Courts have submitted the 
attached list of department heads' salaries for certain mid-size 
City departments. Employees of the Superior and Municipal 
Courts include 64 Judges and Court Commissioners plus 576 
other employees for a total of 640 employees. According to the 
Attachment, although all of the other departments listed have 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

fewer employees than the combined total of employees of the 
Superior and Municipal Courts, the department heads in three 
of the other departments have salaries greater than the 
proposed salary level for the Chief Executive Officer position. 

4. However, the fact remains that there will continue to be two 
department heads in the combined Superior and Municipal 
Courts. The Superior and Municipal Courts have already been 
reorganizing into one entity without this upgraded salary 
request. Therefore, the Budget Analyst concludes that this 
proposal to upgrade the salary of one of the department head 
positions is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors since 
the Superior and Municipal Courts will continue to have two 
department heads. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinances to upgrade a department 
head position salary by $11,797 from $98,580 to $110,377 (at 
the top step) is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Attachment 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
DEPARTMENT HEAD SALARIES 



DEPARTMENT 



# OF 
EMPLOYEES 



TITLE 



SALARY RANGE 



1) Water Department 



530 



2) Sheriffs Department 540 

3) Parking Authority 483 

4) Library 340 

5) Purchasing 207 

6) Port 250 

7) Community Mental 614 
Health 



Department General Manager 
and Chief Engineer 

Sheriff 

Director, Parking and 
Traffic Commission 

City Librarian 

Director of Purchasing 
and Services 

Port Director 

Deputy Director of 
Mental Health 



$94,068-114,32! 
100,464-100,46- 

83,642-101,66 
84,838-103,11 

83,642-101,66! 
106,132-128,98 

96,824-117,70 



45 






Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

Item 11 File 28-92-11.1 



Department 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Airports Commission 

Resolution approving the Controller's action of increasing 
the Airports Commission project budget by $350,000 from 
$150,000 to $500,000 for Airport Contract No. 3200, 
emergency environmental services at Road 18 and Road 9, 
San Francisco International Airport. 

$350,000 

Airport Capital Improvement Funds 

In October of 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved 
Resolution No. 879-92, File 28-92-11, approving a declaration 
of an emergency by the Airports Commission pertaining to 
an impending failure of the main telephone cables serving 
all of the terminals and the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) Control Tower at the San Francisco 
Airport. The emergency was caused by gasoline seeping 
into the telephone cable duct and manhole at Road 18 and 
Road 9. The Airport advised that the telephone cables would 
have to be replaced to avoid a disruption of telephone service 
and that environmental clean up work would have to be 
performed to eliminate the seepage of gasoline into the 
affected area. 

In accordance with Section 6.30 of the Administrative Code, 
the Airport used expedited contract procedures to obtain the 
services of Sierra Environmental Services to perform the 
necessary corrective work. As previously noted, under 
Resolution No. 879-92, the Board of Supervisors approved 
the Airport Commission's declaration of the emergency 
and the Controller's action in reserving $150,000 against 
Airport Capital Improvement Funds. The corrective work 
commenced on July 29, 1992. 

In addition to gasoline, large quantities of jet fuel were 
found adjacent to the telephone manhole and duct bank. To 
protect the telephone technicians, who are Pacific Bell 
employees, from the jet fuel, the Airport reports that 
additional environmental services are necessary to 
investigate the extent of contamination and to design a 
larger remediation system than originally planned. 
Accordingly, the Controller has certified an additional 
$350,000 in Airport Capital Improvement Funds. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



Comments: 



1. At the time the Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 
No. 879-92, Mr. Reuben Halili of the Airport reported that 
the Airport was in the process of making a determination 
as to which airline tenant was responsible for the gasoline 
seepage so that the Airport could seek reimbursement for 
the cost of the repair work on the telephone cables and cost 
of the environmental services. Mr. Halili reports that the 
Airport is currently holding discussions with an Airport 
tenant concerning responsibility for the gasoline seepages. 
Mr. Halili further reports that the Airport is in the 
preliminary stages of determining responsibility for the jet 
fuel seepages. 

2. Mr. Halili reports that the environmental work is 
scheduled to be completed by the end of February, 1993, and 
that repairs to the telephone cables are ongoing. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

Item 12 - File 175-93-1 

1. The proposed resolution would (a) declare the intent of the Board of 
Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco to propose an increase in the 
transactions and use tax (i.e. Sales Tax) in the City and County pursuant to 
Chapter 3.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and (b) establish the San Francisco 
County Public Finance Authority (Public Finance Authority). 

2. The Sales Tax rate which can be imposed within the State of California 
can be allocated into three distinct components: the State of California rate, the 
Bradley-Burns uniform local rate, and the optional locally imposed transaction and 
use tax rate. The proposed resolution would declare the intent of the Board of 
Supervisors to increase the transactions and use tax rate specifically, which 
hereafter will be referred to as the Sales Tax. 

3. AB 1930 is the bill which authorizes counties to increase the transactions 
and use component of the overall Sales Tax rate for the purpose of financing drug 
abuse prevention, crime prevention, health care services, and public education. AB 
1930 provides the following: 

• Counties may adopt a resolution by either or both a) a majority of the 
county Board of Supervisors, or b) by a majority of both the Board of 
Education of the San Francisco Unified School District and the Board of 
Governors of the Community College District, which declares an intent 
to propose an increase in the transactions and use tax rate (i.e. Sales 
Tax rate) and to establish a Public Finance Authority. A Public Finance 
Authority is established for the purpose of recommending a sales tax 
increase to the voters and for determining the distribution of the new 
revenues resulting from the sales tax increase. 

• The Public Finance Authority would be governed by a 10-member 
Board of Directors consisting of five members of the Board of 
Supervisors and a total of five members from both the Unified School 
District and the Community College District. The proposed resolution 
specifies that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors would elect five of 
its eleven members to serve on the Board of Directors of the Public 
Finance Authority. 

• Counties can increase the Sales Tax rate by either 0.25 percent or 0.5 
percent provided both of the following occurs: a) an ordinance is 
approved by a two-thirds vote of the Public Finance Authority which 
specifies how the proceeds will be spent (i.e. drug abuse prevention, 
crime prevention, health care services and public education), and b) the 
proposed Sales Tax rate increase is approved by a majority of the 
qualified voters. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

4. On January 12, 1993, the Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified 
School District approved a resolution which declares its intent to increase the Sales 
Tax rate by either 0.25 percent or 0.5 percent and authorizes the creation of the San 
Francisco County Public Finance Authority. The current 0.25 percent Sales Tax 
surcharge for the Unified School District and the Community College District will 
expire on June 30, 1993. The Public Financing Authority would be established upon 
adoption of a similar resolution by the Board of Governors of the Community 
College District. According to Mr. Bob Golton of the San Francisco Unified School 
District, the rate of the proposed increase in the Sales Tax and the allocation of the 
Sales Tax proceeds from the increased rate would be decided by the Public Finance 
Authority. 

5. The total current Sales Tax rate is 8.5 percent in San Francisco. The 
proceeds from this tax are distributed as follows: 



Portion of 8.5 percent Sales Tax Rate 
6.0 percent 



1.0 percent 

0.5 percent 
0.25 percent 
0.5 percent 
0.25 percent 



8.5 percent 



Distributed to 

Current total to State of 

California; includes a 4.75 % 

base rate; 0.5% temporary 

surtax; 0.25% temporary 

surtax; 0.5% dedicated to 

realignment. 

Amount provided to City and 
County General Fund; 1993- 
94 projected is $90,640,000. 

County Transportation 
Commission 

Statewide County 
Transportation 

Bay Area Rapid Transit 
District 

Surtax, expiring 6/93, 
dedicated to the San 
Francisco Unified School 
District and the San 
Francisco Community 
College District 

Total Sales Tax Rate in 
San Francisco County 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

6. Based on information provided by the State Board of Equalization, on July 
15, 1991, a Sales Tax increase became effective which increased the total State- 
allocated Sales Tax by 1.25 percent, from the 4.75 percent base rate to 6.0 percent. 
The Governor's FY 1993-94 budget indicates that the 0.5 percent temporary surtax 
noted above in the 6.0 percent portion of the Sales Tax allocated to the State of 
California would not be extended past its June 30, 1993 sunset date. The Governor's 
proposal is preliminary, and subsequent State legislation, if approved, may extend 
the 0.5 percent temporary sales tax. As noted above, the current 0.25 percent 
surtax for the San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco 
Community College District also expires on June 30, 1993. Therefore, depending 
upon the State Legislature, and depending on the approval of this proposed 
resolution and the approval of the San Francisco electorate, the following scenarios 
could result: 

a) 8.25 percent. This Sales Tax rate would result if the proposed 
resolution is adopted which would enable the Public Finance Authority, 
with the approval of the voters, to increase the sales tax by up to 0.5 
percent, and the Governor's proposed elimination of the State 0.5 
percent surtax is a pproved by the State legislature Qocal 0.25 percent 
rate for schools expires). 

b) 7.75 percent . This Sales Tax rate would result if the Governor's 
proposed elimination of the State's 0.5 percent surtax is approved by 
the State Legislature, and the San Francisco voters do not approve the 
increase in the Sales Tax rate by 0.5 percent Qocal 0.25 percent rate for 
schools expires). 

7. Mr. Greg Ridenour of the Registrar of Voters reports that a special election 
would require a notice of 88 days after the Board of Supervisors calls for the special 
election. Mr. Ridenour estimates that a special election could cost the City up to $1 
million, depending on the number of initiatives which are placed on the ballot. AB 
1930 specifies that the any increase in the Sales Tax rate must be approved by a 
majority of the qualified voters of that county. However, the City Attorney's Office 
states a two-thirds voter approval is required (see Comment No. 10). AB 1930 also 
indicates that the costs of a special election could be reimbursed from the proceeds 
generated from the Sales Tax rate increase. Therefore, if the voters do not approve 
the increase in the Sales Tax rate, an additional cost of up to $1 million would be 
incurred by the City. However, if the special election is called as part of the 
November, 1993 ballot, the additional costs incurred would only be the minimal 
costs associated with additional voter pamphlet mailing and printing costs. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

8. The existing Sales Tax rates for San Francisco and other Bay area 
counties, as well as Los Angeles County, are as follows: 

Sales Tax Rate With 
Proposed 0.5 percent Increase 



Countv 


Current 
Tax Rate 


in San Francisco but Witho 
State 0.5 percent Surtax 


San Francisco 


8.5 percent 


8.25 percent* 


Alameda 


8.25 percent 


7.75 percent 


Contra Costa 


8.25 percent 


7.75 percent 


Marin 


7.25 percent 


6.75 percent 


San Mateo 


8.25 percent 


7.75 percent 


Santa Clara 


8.25 percent 


7.75 percent 


Solano 


7.25 percent 


6.75 percent 


Sonoma 


7.50 percent 


7.00 percent 


Los Angeles 


8.25 percent 


7.75 percent 



* Includes proposed 0.5 percent local Sales Tax increase (allocated to both the City 
and County and the Board of Education and the Community College District), and 
does not include the current .25 percent surtax for the San Francisco Unified School 
District and the San Francisco Community College District, which expires on June 
30, 1993. 

9. As noted above, if the State eliminates the 0.5 percent surtax and if San 
Francisco increases the Sales Tax by an additional 0.5 percent, to be allocated to the 
City and County and to the Board of Education and the Community College District, 
the total proposed Sales Tax rate for San Francisco would be 8.25 percent, which 
would be 1.5 percent higher than the proposed Marin County Sales Tax rate of 6.75 
percent, and 0.5 percent higher than the other Bay Area counties including San 
Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties. As noted, the difference 
between the Sales Tax in San Francisco and other counties assumes that San 
Francisco would be the only county which increases its Sales Tax. 

10. Mr. David Oppenheim of the California State Association of Counties 
(CSAC) reports that as a result of recent a) litigation, b) legislation, c) a voter 
approved initiative and d) contradictory legal opinions, the requirements which a 
county must follow to increase the Sales Tax rate are now very unclear. In addition, 
Mr. Oppenheim reports that it is also unclear as to whether or not counties may 
increase a Sales Tax rate with a majority vote or whether a two-thirds voter 
approval is required, based upon recent court decisions in San Diego and Woodlake. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

Therefore, Mr. Oppenheim indicates that CSAC policy is that the State Revenue 
and Taxation Code needs to be amended for counties to have any clear authority to 
increase a Sales Tax rate locally. 

Ms. Angela Karikas of the City Attorney's Office has indicated that a two- 
thirds majority of the voters would be required to increase the Sales Tax rate for the 
specific purpose of public education, drug abuse prevention and health care services. 

11. According to Mr. Oppenheim, there is current State legislation which is 
being discussed which would clarify the requirements for increasing a local Sales 
Tax rate. Mr. Oppenheim adds that most counties in California are not considering 
increasing the Sales Tax rate until these legislative ambiguities are clarified. Based 
upon inquiries to the Regional County Offices of the State Board of Equalization, 
neither Marin, San Mateo, Alameda nor Santa Clara counties are proposing to 
increase their local Sales Tax rate at this time. Therefore, if the Sales Tax rate is 
increased by 0.5 percent for San Francisco, the Sales Tax rate for San Francisco will 
be the highest of the adjoining counties in the Bay area. 

12. According to Ms. Sue Lee of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, 
the Chamber of Commerce has not yet developed an official position on the proposed 
Sales Tax rate increase, or determined the impact on businesses if the Sales Tax 
rate is increased by 0.5 percent. However, Ms. Lee notes that the Chamber of 
Commerce had previously remained neutral on the 0.25 percent Sales Tax rate for 
the San Francisco Unified School District and the Community College District. 

13. Based upon the revenue projections for FY 1993-94 included in the "Joint 
Report on the Anticipated Revenue Shortfall for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 Budget" by 
the Controller, the Mayor's Co-Budget Directors and the Budget Analyst, dated 
January 15, 1993, a revenue shortfall of $184 million is projected for FY 1993-94. 
This revenue shortfall is based upon the most recent revenue data, the Governor's 
State budget proposal (which includes an estimated $72 million in reductions for 
San Francisco) and preliminary estimates of the City's expenditure requirements for 
FY 1993-94. 

14. As noted above, in order to hold a special election, an 88 day notice is 
required beginning from the date the special election is called for by the Board of 
Supervisors. In addition, AB 1930 requires 90 days before the increased Sales Tax 
rate can be imposed. The additional revenues which are anticipated to be generated 
from increasing the local Sales Tax rate by one half cent (0.5 percent) are an 
estimated $45.320.000 annually , based on the FY 1993-94 revenue projections 
contained in the Controller's, the Mayor's Co-Budget Directors' and the Budget 
Analyst's joint report. However, given the requirements of the special election and a 
90 day State requirement before these revenues could be imposed, estimated 
revenues for FY 1993-94 would amount to $33.990.000 (effective 10/1/93) if the 
special election were held no later than June, 1993, and an estimated $11.330.000 
(effective 4/1/94) if the special election was held in November, 1993. In addition, it 
is possible that actual revenues received in FY 1993-94 could be reduced if 
consumers travel to other areas to purchase goods and services, given the difference 
between the Sales Tax rate in San Francisco and the Sales Tax rate in surrounding 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

counties. According to Mr. Ed Harrington, the Controller, San Francisco could 
request that the State adopt legislation which would expedite the 90 day State 
requirement in order to begin imposing a new Sales Tax in July, 1993, rather than 
having an effective date in October, 1993, which has been done with previous local 
Sales Tax increases. 

Recommendation 

Approval of the proposed resolution, which would declare the intent of the 
Board of Supervisors to propose an increase in the transactions and use tax (Sales 
Tax) rate and establish the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 

Item 13 - File 100-92-12 

This item is a hearing to consider a report from the Controller regarding the 
1992-93 fiscal year budget status to date. According to Mr. John Madden, Chief 
Deputy Controller, the subject report is still in progress and will not be issued until 
sometime during the first two weeks of February. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



Item 14 - File 100-93-2 



This item is a hearing to consider the Joint Report by the Mayor, the 
Controller and the Budget Analyst regarding the anticipated General Fund 
revenue shortfall for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 budget. Refer to the separate report 
of January 15, 1993 previously issued by the Mayor's Co-Budget Directors, the 
Controller and the Budget Analyst. 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Shelley 
President Alioto 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Bierman 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



C A LEN D A R -ffi"" 



DOCUMPNTS 

FEB 5 1993 



MEETING OF 
UDGET COMMITTEE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
^CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



it 

A .-v WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1993 - 2:00 P.M. LEGISLATTVE CHAMBER 
V\ 2ND FLOOR - CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS MIGDEN, HSIEH, SHELLEY 

CLERK: KAY GULBENGAY 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Budget Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of 
the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member 
of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the matter 
shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item. 

(a) File 101-90-57.3 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Airports Commission, in the amount of $6,633,375 for infrastructure repair and 
maintenance contract. (Airports Commission) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to February 10, 1993 meeting. 

(b) File 94-91-8.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Public Utilities Commission, in the amount of $325,000, for the Station Agent 
Booth Improvements Project. (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Release of $41,000 recommended. Filed. 

(c) File 100-91-1.30 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Port Commission, in the amount of $93,000, for financial and economic 
consultant for the Waterfront Land Use Plan. (Port Commission) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Release of $110,000 recommended. Filed. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE Page 2 



(d) File 101-91-7.5 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Fire 
Department - 1986 Fire Protection Bond, in the amount of $2,964,000, for 
building eight new cisterns in areas that will include parts of the Richmond, 
Sunset and Marina Districts (North Point near Scott Street, Funston & 
California, 30th & Geary, 34th & Balboa, 38th & Geary, 41st & Balboa, 46th & 
Geary and 45th & Vicente). (Fire Department) 

ACTION: Filed. 



(e) File 100-89-1.24 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Fire Department/Consent Decree Program, in the amount of $35,000, to 
provide Management Development and Training for communication and 
teambuilding skills for firefighters and their officers. (Fire Department) 

ACTION: Release of $35,000 recommended. Filed. 
REGULAR CALENDAR 



2. File 185-92-5 . [Children's Services Plan, 1993-94] Resolution approving the 
Children's Services Plan for the San Francisco Children's Fund in accordance with 
Charter Section 6.415. (Supervisor Achtenberg) 

(Continued from 1/13/93) 

ACTION: At the direction of the President transferred to Economic Vitality and 
Social Policy Committee. 

3. File 102-92-13 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 
1992-93, Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families, reflecting the 
addition of five positions (Classifications 9786 Assistant to Mayor III (1), 9782 
Assistant to Mayor I (1), 9740 Staff Assistant PV, Special Project (1), 1632 Sr. 
Account Clerk (1), 1422 Jr. Clerk Typist (1). (Civil Service Commission) 
(Companion measure to File 101-92-31) 

(Continued from 1/27/93) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. (Supervisor Hsieh dissented.) 

4. File 101-92-31 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $70,804, Mayor's 
Office of Children, Youth and their Families, for permanent salaries - miscellaneous 
and related mandatory fringe benefits and rescinding $46,742 from other contractual 
services, for the creation of five positions. (Supervisor Achtenberg) 

(Continued from 1/27/93) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. (Supervisor Hsieh dissented.) 



BUDGET COMMITTEE Page 3 



File 97-92-67 . [Board of Supervisors - Fees] Ordinance amending Administrative 
Code by adding Section 8.37 thereto, authorizing the Clerk of the Board of 
Supervisors to collect fees to defray the cost of mailing and providing copies of 
documents relating to the business of the Board of Supervisors, and authorizing the 
Clerk of the Board to waive, in exigent circumstances, the fees authorized by this 
section. (Clerk of the Board) 
Continued from 1/20/93) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amended (See File Details) Bearing same title. 
Recommended as amended. 



File 12-93-4 . [Local Government Funding] Resolution authorizing the State 
Legislative Representative to advocate for the City's ability to generate local 
revenues (AB 1930 one-half cent sales tax and extend payroll and gross receipts tax 
to banks and savings and loan associations). (Supervisor Migden ) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amendment of the whole (as presented by Supervisor 
Migden) adopted. 

New Title : "Authorizing the State Legislative Representative to 
advocate for the City's ability to generate local revenues." 
Recommended as amended. 



File 101-92-26 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $5,450 for 
permanent salaries and related mandatory fringe benefits, for the creation of one (1) 
position and deletion of one (1) position, Superior Court for Fiscal Year 1992-93. 
(Controller) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amended on page 1 lines 1,11 and 15 by replacing "$5,450" 
with "$2,750; and on line 13 by replacing $4,656" with $2,391" and further 
amended on line 14 by replacing "$794" with "$359". 

New Title : "Appropriating $2,750 for permanent salaries and related 
mandatory fringe benefits, for the creation of one (1) position and 
deletion of one (1) position, Superior Court for Fiscal Year 1992-93." 
Recommended as amended. 



File 102-92-11 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 
1992-93, Superior Court, reflecting the reclassification of one (1) position. 
(Companion measure to File 101-92-26) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 



CITY AND COUNTY 




City Report 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGEXAIliALXST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



February 1, 1993 

TO: Budget Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: February 3, 1993 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item la - File 101-90-57.3 
Department Airports Commission 



Item: 



Amount: 

Source of 
Funds: 



Requesting release of reserved funds for infrastructure and 
maintenance contract. 

$6,633,375 



Interest income on unused balances of the Airport's capital 
project funds remaining from completed projects, as follows: 



Airport Capital Improvement Fund 
1967 General Obligation Bonds 
1975 Series A Revenue Bonds 
1977 Series B Revenue Bonds 
1981 Series C Revenue Bonds 
1983 Series D Revenue Bonds 
1990 Series E Revenue Bonds 
Total Source of Funds 



$ 7,466,608 

56,756 

382,135 

483,130 

4,475,268 

3,018,705 

2.021.000 

$17,903,602 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



Description: In March of 1991, the Board of Supervisors appropriated 

interest earned on the residual balances of funds from capital 
improvement projects that had been completed at the Airport 
in the amount of $17,903,602 (File 101-90-57) for the following 
projects: 

Replace Electrical Equipment and Change 

Field Lighting Voltage $ 2,900,000 

Construct High Speed Exit Taxiway 5,107,830 

Dike Reconstruction - Phase 5 1,300,000 

Centerline Lights & Taxiway Lights Upgrade 1,595,772 

Extend Runway Safety Area - Phase I 3,000,000 

Runway Exit Fillet Widening- Phase I 1,000,000 

Electrical Power Distribution System Upgrade 3,000,000 

Total Request $17,903,602 

Architectural and engineering design, inspections and 
project management for all of the proposed projects were to 
have been performed in-house by Airport staff, which 
accounts for $2,685,540 or 15 percent of the amount requested 
for each project. The remaining 85 percent of the $17,903,602 
requested, or $15,218,062, was placed on reserve pending 
selection of the outside contractors and determination of the 
contract cost details and the MBE/WBE status of the 
contractors. 

The Airport requests the release of $6,633,375 (see Comment 
No. 7) of the previously reserved funds of $15,218,062 to 
provide funding for Phase II of the Field Lighting Raceway 
System Improvement Project. The total estimated cost for the 
Project is $22,600,000. 

However, it should be noted that the Field Lighting System 
Improvement Project is not included in the projects above 
(see Comment No. 2). 

According to the Airport, under the current raceway lighting 
system, maintenance crews must close down runways and 
taxiways to perform maintenance work, because of the close 
proximity of the cabling to the operational area. For safety 

BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

reasons, the raceway circuits are worked on only during 
daylight hours when all lights are off. The proposed project 
would relocate all components of the distribution portion of 
the circuits away from the critical operational areas, thus 
permitting access to the components without closing circuits. 
The project would also provide a separate raceway system for 
each circuit, permitting maintenance crews to work on a 
single circuit at night without shutting down all circuits. 

Comments: 1. The Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors 

previously released from the reserved amount of $15,218,062 
funding in the amount of $2,436,885 (File 101-90-57.1), and 
$1,724,441 (File 101-90-57.2) in May and August of 1991, 
respectively. Therefore, funding in the amount of $11,056,736 
remains on reserve. 

2. The Field Lighting Raceway Improvement Project is not 
included in the list of projects for which the Board of 
Supervisors previously appropriated the $17,903,602. Mr. 
John Martin of the Airport reports that since 1990, proceeds 
of Airport bonds sold must be expended according to time 
schedules imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. In order 
to adhere those schedules and avoid paying penalties, the 
Airport is required to constantly adjust its financing plans to 
expend restricted bond proceeds as quickly as possible. 

3. Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office reports that 
the Controller's Office does not object to the proposed use of 
funds and that approval of funds for the Field Lighting 
Raceway Improvement Project is within the purview of the 
Board of Supervisors. 

4. Mr. Martin reports that the projects for which the 
$17,903,602 was originally appropriated are all scheduled to 
be completed, using future capital project funds, subject to 
separate appropriation by the Board of Supervisors. 

5. Rosendin Electric has been selected to perform the 
construction work on the Field Lighting Raceway 
Improvement Project, based on its low bid of $4,758,863. The 
Airport has provided the following bid information: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



Bidder 

Rosendin 
Electric 



Recommendation: 



SWK, (J.V.) 1 



MBE/WBE Bid 

Status Amount 

Registered MBE - Not Dis- 
advantaged No Preference $4,758,863 

None $5,772,400 



Abbet-Tick (J.V.) Certified MBE/10% preference $5,780,950 

Amelco Electrical 

R. Ruiz (J.V.) Certified MBE/10% Preference $7,781,131 

6. Phase I of the Field Lighting Raceway Improvement 
Project commenced in October of 1992. The entire Project is 
scheduled for completion in September of 1993. 

7. According to Mr. Martin, because the low bid for the 
electrical contractor work was $4,758,863 and the original 
estimate for that work was $5,415,000, the request for the 
release of reserved funds should be changed from $6,633,375 
to $5,829,607 as follows: 



Construction Subtotal 
AE&I 2 /Contingency 
Project Total - Phase II 



$4,758,863 
1.070.744 



$5,829,607 



Because the Field Lighting Raceway Improvement Project 
was not included in the list of projects for which the 
requested funds were previously appropriated, the decision 
as to whether to approve this release of funds is a policy 
matter for the Budget Committee. If the Budget Committee 
approves release of funding for the requested project, reduce 
the amount of the requested release of the reserved funds by 
$803,768, from $6,633,375 to $5,829,607. Continue to reserve the 
$803,768. 



1 Joint Venture. 

^Architectural, Engineering and Inspection. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

Item lb - File 94-91-8.1 



Department 
Item: 

Amount: 

Source of 
Funds: 

Description: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Requesting release of reserved funds for the Station Agent 
Booth Improvement Project. 

$325,000 



Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) Section 
9 Formula Assistance Funds 

In January of 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved 
Resolution No. 3-92 (File No. 94-91-8) authorizing the PUC to 
apply for, accept, and expend UMTA Section 9 Formula 
Assistance Funds in the amount of $26,819,276 and also 
approved $6,704,819 from various local match sources. The 
total sum of $33,524,095 was placed on reserve, pending 
submission of detailed project budgets. 

The Station Agent Booth Improvement Project would be the 
first use of funds from the reserved $33,524,095 UMTA 
Section 9 Formula Assistance Funds. 

The purpose of the Station Agent Booth Improvement Project 
is to improve the working conditions in the 16 station agent 
booths located in the MUNI Metro system between the West 
Portal and Embarcadero Stations. The booths are 
inadequately ventilated and cause neck and eye strain due to 
the location of television monitors. The booths also have 
inadequate security resulting from the sliding glass 
partitions used to verify transfers and to respond to questions. 

The PUC reports that the main objective of the project is to 
provide air conditioning for cooling and ventilation to 
maintain the booth temperature at a comfortable range at all 
times. 

The scope of work for the 16 agent booths would consist of the 
following: 

1. Improve Ventilation and Space Conditioning - Furnish 
and install a heat pump and a separate filtered supply air 
fan for proper temperature and ventilation control. The 
supply air fan unit would filter the air for maximum 
cleanliness and prevent stale air from entering the booths. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



Project Budget: 



2. Power/Control Cabinet Cooling - The small fan in the 
power/control unit cabinet would be modified to exhaust 
the warm air, as opposed to the existing method of 
blowing the warm and dirty air into the booth. 

3. Electrical - Electrical support would consist of relocating 
the existing television monitors to the counter level, which 
will require communication and electrical wiring 
support. The heat pump unit will be wired to the existing 
electric heater circuit breaker. The existing lighting 
would be modified to reduce glare. 

4. Booth Glass - The existing sliding glass partitions used for 
verifying transfers and responding to questions would be 
replaced with a stationary/fixed position glass. A 
stationary money/transfer ticket tray would be provided 
for exchanges. An amplifier/speaker unit similar to the 
units used by BART would be added for improved 
communication and safety. 

5. Television Monitors - The existing television monitors, 
which are mounted at ceiling level, would be lowered to 
the counter level by modifying or replacing the counters 
on one side of the booths. The modification option would 
involve cutting holes in the existing counter and providing 
new shelves installed at an angle with modification to the 
existing structural steel tubes. The modification would be 
modeled after the existing Forest Hill Station agent booth. 

1. Engineering 

a. PUC Utilities Engineering 

Bureau (UEB) Inhouse Personnel $11,000 
Project Management $2,200 

Engineering Services 7,700 

Construction Engineering 1,100 

b. Contingency 2.000 

Subtotal - Engineering $13,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

2. Design 



a. 


UEB In-house Personnel 
Project Management 
Engineering Services 
Construction Engineering 


$3,500 

18,800 

2,200 


$24,500 




b. 


Contingency 

Subtotal - Design 




3,500 


$28,000 


Construction 








a. 
b. 


UEB In-house Personnel 
Project Management 
Engineering Services 
Construction Engineering 

Construction Contract 


$3,300 

6,700 

18,500 


$28,500 
222,600 




c. 


Contingency 




29,900 




d. 


Other Direct Costs (Reproduction, 
Mailing, Travel) 


3,000 






Subtotal - Construction Costs 




$284,000 



4. Total Project 



$325,000 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



1. Ms. Mary Williams, Project Manager for the Station 
Agent Booth Improvement Project, reports that the UEB 
plans to commence engineering work on the Project on 
February 8, 1993, and that the project is scheduled to be 
completed in November of 1993. 

2. Ms. Williams further reports that May 3, 1993, is the 
estimated date for soliciting bids for the construction work on 
the project. 

3. The UEB in-house work would be performed by existing 
personnel paid through workorders, reimbursable from the 
subject grant funds. 

Release $41,000 in project funding for the UEB in-house 
engineering and design phases. Continue to reserve the 
construction funding in the amount of $284,000 pending 
submission to the Board of Supervisors of the selection of the 
contractor, the contract cost details and the MBE/WBE status 
of the contractor. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

Item lc - File 100-91-1.30 

Department Port Commission 

Item: Request for release of reserved funds for the Port 

Commission in the amount of $93,000 for financial and 
economic consultant services for the Waterfront Land Use 
Plan. 

Amount: $93,000 (see Comment No. 5) 

Description: The Port Commission's 1991-92 budget included $240,000 for 

consultant services related to land use planning and the 
environmental impact report for the Port's Waterfront Land 
Use Plan. Of the $240,000 which was placed on reserve in 
1991 by the Board of Supervisors, $75,000 was designated for 
land use planning consultants and $165,000 was designated 
for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consultants. 

These funds were placed on reserve by the Board of 
Supervisors pending identification of the proposed 
consultants, the hourly rates, and the MBE/WBE status of the 
consultants. Accordingly, the Port submitted a request to the 
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for release of $93,000 of 
these reserved funds, including $75,000 for economic and 
financial analyses of alternative land use plans, and $18,000 
for preliminary studies related to the Environmental Impact 
Report (see Comment No. 4). 

The Port is now requesting that funds be released in the 
amount of $110,000, including an additional $17,000 for 
transportation planning services to analyze traffic patterns at 
the Port's container terminal (see Comment No. 5). The 
remaining $130,000 of the $240,000 which was placed on 
reserve would continue to be reserved pending release for the 
preparation of further consulting services for the 
Environmental Impact Report at a later time. 

The preparation of a Waterfront Land Use Plan was 
mandated by San Francisco voters under Proposition H, 
which was enacted in November, 1990. Proposition H 
requires the City to prepare a land use plan which designates 
three categories of land use for the Waterfront: 1) maritime 
land uses, 2) acceptable non-maritime land uses, and 3) 
unacceptable non-maritime land uses for the Waterfront. 
Until the plan is completed, the City cannot allow new 
development of any non-maritime uses for the Waterfront 
except for those uses which had already existed or had all 
necessary permits prior to January 1, 1990. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



The completed Waterfront Land Use Plan would be subject to 
public hearings before the City Planning Commission. Once 
the plan is adopted by the City Planning Commission, the 
City's Master Plan would be amended to incorporate its 
provisions, and the City could not allow any developments 
which are designated as Unacceptable Non-Maritime Uses in 
the Waterfront Land Use Plan. 

Comments: 1. The Port Commission reports that a Request for Proposal 

(RFP) was issued on October 19, 1992 for economic and 
financial analysis services which are needed to evaluate 
alternative land use development scenarios for the 
Waterfront. The Port advises that the RFP was advertised in 
the San Francisco Examiner, the Small Business Exchange , 
and the Purchasing Department's newsletter, and that the 
Human Rights Commission assisted in outreach efforts to 
local, minority-owned and women-owned enterprises. 

2. Twelve proposals were submitted in response to the RFP. 
A number of bids were received from teams of consulting 
firms who proposed to collaborate as a joint venture for this 
project. Attachments to this report reflect 1) the names of the 
consulting teams which responded to the proposal 
(Attachment 1); 2) the percent of MBE/WBE representation, 
the bid amount, and the range of hourly rates for each 
proposal submitted (Attachment 2); and, 3) a description of 
the professional services offered by each of the MBE/WBE 
firms which responded to the RFP and the bid preference 
which each of these firms was eligible to receive based on 
criteria established by the Human Rights Commission 
(Attachment 3). The Budget Analyst notes that not all of the 
MBE/WBE firms qualified for bid preferences, since an 
MBE/WBE firm must also qualify for such preferences based 
on its location in San Francisco and financial criteria which 
establish whether the firm is economically disadvantaged. 

3. The Port advises that the twelve proposals were evaluated 
based on the criteria described in the RFP, including project 
approach, ability to meet the needs of the Port, and the 
qualifications and experience of the consultants and 
designated project staff. Each proposal was evaluated using 
a point system based on these criteria. 

The Human Rights Commission preferences for local, 
minority, and women-owned businesses were then applied to 
the point totals; four of the twelve proposals qualified for 
MBE/WBE preferences. The twelve proposals were then 
ranked by their adjusted scores, and the four highest ranking 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



consulting teams were invited to participate in oral 
interviews, including two who had received MBE/WBE 
preferences. 

The selection committee, comprised of representatives from 
the Port and other City agencies, assigned the highest score 
following oral interviews to the consulting team of Economic 
and Planning Systems / Vickerman-Zachary-Miller / 
Dinwiddie and Associates / David Evans and Associates, a 
joint venture, which submitted a proposed amount of $75,000. 
This team includes 18 percent MBE/WBE representation 
through the participation of Dinwiddie and Associates of 
Oakland, California, which is both an MBE and WBE firm, 
but which is not eligible to receive a bid preference under the 
Human Rights Commission criteria, which require a San 
Francisco location. 

4. The twelve consulting teams which responded to the RFP 
submitted total bids ranging from $72,000 to $75,025 (See 
Attachment 2). Ms. Veronica Sanchez of the Port states that 
these services included economic and financial analysis 
related to land use planning, as well as some transportation 
planning. 

Following the selection of Economic and Planning Systems, 
et. al. (as described at Comment 3, above), the scope of the 
services to be performed was expanded and the amount of the 
proposed contract was increased by $18,000 from $75,000 to 
$93,000, to incorporate preliminary studies needed for the 
Environmental Impact Report for the Waterfront Land Use 
Plan. The $18,000 increase was included during contract 
negotiations and, because the consultants wished to secure 
the contract, the $18,000 cost of these services reflects a highly 
competitive offer, according to Ms. Sanchez. 

However, since the proposals submitted in response to the 
RFP concerned the original scope of services valued at 
approximately $75,000, and since the proposed increase in the 
contract to $93,000 was negotiated with a single consulting 
team after the proposals were submitted, the Budget Analyst 
believes that the release of $18,000 for the additional services 
related to the Environmental Impact Report is a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 

5. On January 29, 1993, the Port proposed to further increase 
the revised amount of the contract by an additional $17,000 
from $93,000 to $110,000. Ms. Sanchez advises that the 
additional $17,000 would be used to expand the scope of the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



consultant's services to include transportation planning for 
the Port's container terminals. 

Ms. Sanchez advises that the Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission (MTC) notified the Port on January 29, 1993 that 
additional traffic studies of the Port's container terminals are 
needed in order for the Port to qualify for $6.8 million in 
congestion management funds, administered by MTC, for 
the Port's tunnel project. 

The tunnel project concerns improvements to the Port's rail 
and trucking facilities for the movement of container cargo. 
Since these are land uses which will be examined as part of 
the Waterfront Land Use Plan, Ms. Sanchez states that the 
proposed additional $17,000 for these transportation planning 
services will support the Port's $6.8 million grant application 
to MTC and also generate data for the Environmental Impact 
Report for the Waterfront Land Use Plan. 

In order to qualify for the congestion management funds, the 
Port must complete the required traffic studies by April, 1993. 
For this reason, Ms. Sanchez states that the Port wishes to 
include the transportation planning services in the economic 
and financial analysis and preliminary EIR services to be 
provided by the consultants for the Waterfront Land Use 
Plan. 

These additional transportation planning services would be 
provided by the firm of David Evans and Associates, which is 
part of the joint venture team of consultants selected to 
perform the original scope of financial and economic 
analysis services. David Evans and Associates is neither an 
MBE nor WBE firm. However, Ms. Sanchez states that none 
of the transportation planning firms which responded to the 
RFP are certified MBE or WBE firms. 

6. Ms. Sanchez indicates that transportation planning 
services of this nature were included, to a lesser extent, in 
the Request for Proposal which was issued by the Port on 
October 19, 1992 for the Waterfront Land Use Plan. However, 
she states that the RFP did not reflect the full scope of the 
transportation planning services which the Port now wishes 
to perform. 

7. The Budget Analyst notes that, since the full range of the 
proposed additional transportation planning services were 
not included in the RFP issued by the Port on October 19, 1992, 
all of the consultants responding to the RFP did not have an 
opportunity to fully respond to these additional services. In 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



addition, although Ms. Sanchez states that the proposed 
additional transportation planning services would have been 
performed at a later date for the Waterfront Land Use Plan, 
the funds for these services are being requested at this time 
in connection with a project other than the Waterfront Land 
Use Plan for which the funds were originally budgeted. 

For these reasons, the Budget Analyst would normally 
recommend that the release of an additional $17,000 for the 
expanded transportation planning services not be approved. 
However, since Ms. Sanchez indicates that the transportation 
planning services are needed on an expedited basis in order 
to apply for $6.8 million in funds available from MTC, the 
Budget Analyst believes that the release of an additional 
$17,000 for these services is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

9. The Budget Analyst notes that the proposed contract cost of 
$110,000 is approximately 47 percent higher than the $75,000 
cost of the services which were included in the Port's original 
Request for Proposal. 

10. The Port advises that, under the proposed contract, the 
hourly fee for the consultants' services would range from $30 
to $120, and the average hourly fee for the proposed services 
would be $90.00. The amount of the hourly fee for each 
consultant will vary based on the seniority and expertise of 
each consultant, but could not exceed $120. 

11. Mr. Paul Osmundson, Development Project Coordinator 
for the Port, states that a contract for the services to be 
performed by the consultants would include a provision that 
the total cost of the contract could not exceed $93,000 for 
economic and financial analysis and preliminary EIR 
studies (if the proposed additional transportation services are 
not included), or $110,000 if the scope of services is expanded 
to include the additional transportation services. 

The Port estimates that the proposed contract, without the 
additional transportation services, would require 
approximately 1,000 hours to complete, at an estimated cost of 
$90,000. However, because the Port believes that the scope of 
work for the economic and financial consultants could 
require slightly more than 1,000 hours, the Port has 
requested release of reserved funds in the amount of $93,000 
for these services, which provide for approximately 1,033 
hours at the average hourly rate of $90.00. 



BC-ARD QF SUPEHY^SPIJS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

10. The Budget Analyst notes that, of the $240,000 which was 
placed on reserve in 1990 by the Board of Supervisors, $75,000 
was designated for land use planning consultants to provide 
economic and financial analyses, and $165,000 was 
designated for EIR consultants. Of the $110,000 being 
requested for release at this time, $75,000 would be used for 
economic and financial analysis related to land use 
planning, and $35,000 would support the Environmental 
Impact Report, according to the Port. If $110,000 is released 
at this time, then $130,000 would remain on reserve for the 
Environmental Impact Report ($240,000 currently on reserve 
less the $110,000 which would be released). 

Ms. Sanchez states that $130,000 may or may not be sufficient 
to pay the cost of the Environmental Impact Report, since the 
cost of the EIR will depend on market conditions at the time 
that an RFP for environmental consulting services is issued. 

Alternatively, if $93,000 is released at this time, then $147,000 
would remain on reserve for the EIR consultants. If $75,000 
is released at this time for the economic and financial 
analysis services which were included in the Port's RFP, 
then $165,000 would remain on reserve for the EIR 
consultants. 

Recommendation: Approve the release of reserved funds in the amount of 
$75,000 for economic and financial services related to land 
use planning, which were included in the Port's RFP of 
October 19, 1993. 

Release of an additional $18,000 which has been requested to 
expand the original scope of economic and financial services 
to include preliminary environmental studies (increasing the 
amount of the contract from $75,000 to $93,000) is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors, since these services were 
not included in the RFP and not all of the consulting teams 
responding to the RFP had the opportunity to fully respond to 
these proposed additional services. 

The Budget Analyst would normally recommend disapproval 
of an additional $17,000 which has been requested for 
transportation planning services for the Port's tunnel project 
which also were not included in the RFP, and which would 
further increase the cost of the proposed services from $93,000 
to $110,000. However, since the Port states that these services 
are needed on an expedited basis to qualify for $6.8 million in 
MTC funds, the release of $17,000 for transportation planning 
services is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



J ON 29 '93 16:31 PORT OF SON FRAN. 



File 100-91-1.30 
Attachment 1 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RFP FOR FINANCIAL & ECONOMIC CONSULTANT SERVICES 

FOR THE WATERFRONT LAND USE FLAN 



PROPOSALS SUBMITTED 

Coopers & Lybrand / THK Associates, Inc. 

Gruen Gruen & Associates / McGuire & Company 



Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc. / 

Theresa Hughes & Associates, Inc. / Ackland International / 

Polaris Research & Development 



Economic & Planning Systems / Vickerman - Zachary - Miller / 
Dinwiddie & Associates / David Evans & Associates 



Economics Research Associates / BST Associates / Carol Brown 
Cordoba Corporation / Price Waterhouse 
Ted Rust / Bay Area Economics 
Polaris Research & Development 

Recht Hausrath & Associates / Manalytics Inc. 
Martin O'Connell Associates 



Sedway & Associates / Kotin, Regan & Mouchly, Inc. / 
Concept Marine Associates, Inc. / M. Abbot & Associates 



Grigsby / Graves & Company / Starboard Financial Services / 
FORMA / Velio Kiisk 

PO/O-XFPSLISTCPS) 



14 



FEB 01 '93 15:00 PORT OF SPIN FRAN. 



File 100-91-1.30 
Attachment 2 



January 29, 1993 

Characteristics of Proposals Submitted 

in Response to RFP for Financial and Economic Consultant Services 



Lead Consultant 
Cooper's and Lybrand 
Gruen & Gruen Associates 
Williams & Kuelbelbeck 
Economics Research. Ass. 
Cordoba Corp. 
Ted Rust 
Polaris R&D 
Recht Hausrath 
Martin O'Connell 
Sedway and Associates 
Grigsby Graves & Company 

Economic <fr Planning Systems 



Percent MBE/ WBE 


Original Bid 


Range of 
Hourlv Rates 


0% 


$75,000 


$35 -$160 


100% 


$75,000 


$35 - $150 


40% 


$75,000 


$45 - $100 


0% 


$75,000 


$70 -$150 


0% 


$72,000 


$50 - $185 


0% 


$75,000 


$50 -$100 


54% 


$73,000 


$50 -$100 


0% 


$75,025 


$70 -$125 


0% 


$75,000 


$50 - $125 


45% 


$75,000 


$50 -$140 


51% 


$75,000 


$35 - $150 


18% 


$75,000 


$30-5120 



15 



FEB 01 '93 15=01 PORT OF SAN FRAN. 

File 100-91-1.30 
Attachment 3 
Breakdown of Proposals Submitted by teams with MBE/WBE participation 

Gruen & Gruen 

Gruen & Gruen is a certified WBE, had 80% of the original bid, and is an urban 

economics firm. 

McGuire & Company is a certified MBE, had 20% of the original bid, and is a also 

an urban economics firm.) 

Total MBE/WBE participation: 100% 

Prefe rence Received: 10% 

Polaris R&D 

Polaris R & D is a certified MBE, had 54% of the original bid, and is an 

economic impact consulting firm. 

Total MBE/WBE participation: 54% 

Preference received: 10% 

Sedwav & Associates 

Sedway & Associates is a certified WBE, had 45% of the original bid, and is an 

urban land economics consulting firm. 

Total MBE/WBE participation: 45%? 

Preference received: 10% 

Grigsby/Graves 

Grigsby/Graves is an MBE, had 51% of the original bid, and is a land use and 

financialplanning firm. 

Total MBE/WBE participation: 51% 

Preference received: 10% 

Williams & Kuelhelheck 

Williams & Kuelbelbeck is a majority firm, had 60% of the original bid, and is 

an economic consulting firm. 

Theresa Hughes & Associates is a M/WBE, had 14.6% of the original bid, and is a 

land use planning firm. 

Ackland International is an MBE, had 14.6% of the original bid, and is a cost 

estimator. 

Polaris R & D is a certified MBE, had 10.7% of the original bid, and is an 

economic analvsis firm. 

Total MBE/WBE participation: 40% 

Preference received: none 

Economic and Planning Systems (Selected team) 

Economic and Planning Systems is a majority firm, had 55% of the original bid, 

and is an economic consulting firm. 

Vickerman - Zachary - Miller is a majority firm, had 20% of the original bid, 

and is a maritime and intermodal facilities planning firm. 

Dinwiddie and Associates is a M/WBE, had 18% of the original bid, and is a 

planning and predevelopment consulting firm. 

David Evans and Associates is a majority firm, had 7% of the original bid , and 

is a transportation and environmental planning firm. (The assigned project 

staff from David Evans, Donna Pittman, is an African- American female). 

Total MBE •' WBE participation: 18% 

Preference received: none 

16 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

Item Id - File 101-91-7.5 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Note: 



Fire Department 

Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering 

Release of reserved funds for the construction of new cisterns 
in the Richmond/Sunset/Marina Districts. 

$2,964,000 

1986 Fire Protection System Improvement Bonds 

Mr. Bob Jew of the Department of Public Works reports that 
this request for release of reserve was submitted in 
anticipation of the approval of other legislation that has not 
yet come before the Board of Supervisors. Therefore Mr. Jew 
requests that the item be filed. 

Recommendation: File this item as requested by the Department of Public 
Works. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYSf 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

Item le - File 100-89-1.24 



Department: 

Item: 
Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Fire Department, Consent Decree Division 
Civil Service 

Release of reserved funds for training 

$35,000 

$168,000 balance of reserved funds appropriated to the 
Consent Decree budget for 1989-90 

In approving the Fire Department's 1989-90 budget for the 
Consent Decree, the Board of Supervisors reserved $250,000 
for training, pending details of the training projects to be 
provided. The proposed release of reserve would provide 
funding for a contract for training uniform and civilian 
employees of the Fire Department in communications skills 
and teambuilding. The proposed contractor was selected by 
the Civil Service Commission and will be administered by the 
Civil Service Commission staff. The Fire Department will 
workorder the funding to the Civil Service Commission. 

The Civil Service Commission selected Ms. Diane Sanchez as 
the consultant because Ms. Sanchez had just completed 
another training program for the Fire Department entitled 
Supervisors as Coaches. The additional training to be 
performed by Ms. Sanchez is an extension of the Supervisors 
as Coaches program. According to the Civil Service 
Commission, Ms. Sanchez is a recognized expert in the field 
of Affirmative Action and Organizational Development 
consulting and has the approval of both the Federal Court 
Monitor (see Comment, below) and the Civil Service 
Commission to perform the additional training. Although 
Ms. Sanchez is both a woman and a minority, she is not a 
resident of San Francisco and therefore is not certified to 
MBE/WBE status by the Human Rights Commission. 

The proposed consultant will provide 53.85 days of service at a 
daily rate of $650 (approximately $81.25 per hour based on an 
eight hour day) as detailed in the attached summary 
submitted by the Civil Service Commission staff. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

The objectives of the proposed training program are to 
improve the ability of all members of the Fire Department to 
work together effectively and to accept other employees as 
integral members of the team. Goals of the training program 
are as follows: 

Reinforce the training already received by Fire 
Department Officers in the "Supervisor as Coach" 
training program conducted by Civil Service. 

Improve the communication skills of individual 
Fire Department employees and their ability to work 
together with others as a team. 

Reduce incidents of harassment among Fire 
Department employees by strengthening teamwork 
and interpersonal communication skills. 

Comment: The Fire Department is currently operating under a Consent 

Decree monitored by the Federal Court. According to the Fire 
Department, on January 19, 1993 the Federal Court ordered 
the Fire Department to present their Management Plan, that 
includes the proposed training, to the Federal Court by 
February 26, 1993 and to show that components of the 
Management Plan are being implemented. 

Recommendation: Release the reserve on $35,000 in funding for Consent Decree 
Division training activities as requested. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



1Q 



Attachment 



Summary of Work to be performed by Diane Sanchez 

for the San Francisco Fire Department 

1n Cooperation with the Civil Service Management 

and Employee Development Division 



Phase I 



Preparation of survey to be distributed to all firefighters; analysis 
of survey results; preparation of report on survey results, design of 
workshop materials; meetings with Battalion Chiefs, Chief of 
Department and other managers to review design and present results of 
survey; present pilot programs; redesign elements of program If 
needed. 

Total number of days 9 $650 per day 12.35 

Phases II and III 

Deliver pilot programs (2 days), evaluate results, meet with Director 
of Training, Civil Service to revise program as needed; teach 
programs (37 days); meet with Chief of Department, Deputies, 
Assistant Chiefs and Battalion Chiefs to provide periodic feedback 
and monitoring of program Implementation (2.5 days). 

Total number of days 8 $650 per day 41.5 

Total number of days: 53.85 

Total consultant cost 8 $650 per day $35,000.00 



20 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

Item 2 - File 185-92-5 

Note: This item was continued at the January 13, 1993 Finance Committee 
Meeting. 

Department Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families 

(MOCYF) 

Item: Resolution approving the Fiscal Year 1993-94 Children's 

Services Plan for the San Francisco Children's Fund in 
accordance with Charter Section 6.415. 

Description: Proposition J, commonly known as the "Children's 

Amendment", that was approved by the electorate in 
November, 1991 amended Section 6.415 of the Charter to 
require the establishment of the San Francisco Children's 
Fund. The San Francisco Children's Fund augments the 
existing level of expenditures for services and programs for 
children. The Children's Amendment requires that the City 
maintain a level of expenditure for children's services which 
is equal to or greater than the level of expenditure in fiscal 
year 1990-91 or 1991-92, whichever is greater, and sets aside a 
certain percentage of property tax revenues to fund additional 
services above and beyond the level of services funded prior to 
adoption of the Children's Amendment. 

The Children's Fund is funded by an annual set-aside of ad 
valorem (property) tax revenues in the amount of $0.0125 (one 
and one quarter cents) per hundred dollars of assessed 
valuation for Fiscal Year 1992-93 and $0,025 (two and one half 
cents) per hundred dollars of assessed valuation for Fiscal 
Year 1993-94 and the eight subsequent fiscal years. The 
Children's Amendment will expire after a total of ten years. 

In 1992, the Controller certified that the City's appropriations 
for children's services prior to adoption of the Children's 
Amendment totaled approximately $50 million. This baseline 
amount of approximately $50 million, represents the required 
minimum expenditure by the City for children's services in 
each of the ten fiscal years. Each succeeding year the 
baseline amount will be adjusted annually by the percentage 
change in aggregate City appropriations since the base year. 

The Children's Fund for Fiscal Year 1992-93 is 
approximately $5.7 million. Therefore, the total funding for 
children's services in Fiscal Year 1992-93 is approximately 
$55.7 million (approximately $50 million baseline plus $5.7 
million in the Children's Fund). The Controller's Office 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

estimates that the ad valorem tax revenue for the Fiscal Year 
1993-94 Children's Fund will be approximately $13.2 million. 

The Children's Amendment requires that for the first four 
fiscal years in which monies are set aside, the City must 
allocate at least 25 percent of the Children's Fund to each of 
three areas of "eligible services": 1) childcare, 2) health and 
social services, and 3) job readiness, training, and 
placement. The balance of not more than 25 percent of the 
Fund may be used only for libraries, recreation, delinquency 
prevention, and education programs for children. Beginning 
with the fifth fiscal year (1996-97), the Board of Supervisors 
may modify or eliminate these minimum funding 
requirements. The Children's Amendment does not specify 
how administrative costs of these programs are to be paid. 

The Children's Amendment also requires that the Mayor 
submit to the Board of Supervisors, by December of each year, 
a "Children's Services Plan" for the next fiscal year to specify 
the goals and objectives to be achieved through expenditures 
from the Children's Fund, to outline proposals for 
expenditures from the Children's Fund and to recommend 
City departments to administer the funded programs. 

Beginning in fiscal year 1993-94, the Children's Amendment 
requires a public planning process, in which public hearings 
are to be held by the Public Health, Juvenile Probation, Social 
Services, Recreation and Parks, and Public Library 
Commissions prior to submission of the Mayor's Children's 
Services Plan to the Board of Supervisors. According to the 
proposed plan, 19 such public hearings were held in 
November and December, 1992. 

Proposed Budget The funding allocations for Fiscal Year 1992-93 expenditures 
of the Children's Fund and the proposed Children's Services 
Plan for 1993-94 reflecting estimated program expenditures 
from the Children's Fund are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



SERVICE CATEGORIES 



Funding Proposed 

Allocations Plan for 

for FY 1992-93 FY 1993-94 



Childcare 

Vouchers to Parents 

Provider Center Subsidies 

SFUSD Children's Centers 

After School Care Programs 

Respite Care 

Day Care Technical Assistance 

Extended Hours 

S.F.Unified Departmental Services 

Special Needs 

Total-Childcare 

Health and Social Services 

Public Health Nurse - AFDC Intake 

Health Outreach Worker 

Neighborhood Preventive Health Team 

Healthy Start Matching Funds 

Mental Health Centers Outreach 

GAIN Teen Program 

Prevention Services 

Homeless Families 

Mental Health to Child Care 

Child Abuse Prevention 

Parent Education 

S.F.Unified Departmental Services 

Special Needs 

Total-Health and Social Services 



$454,764 


$889,764 


332,100 


562,100 


80,000 


80,000 


246,409 


436,409 


75,000 


175,000 


37,500 


37,500 


- 


135,000 


- 


385,398 


59,829 


268.829 


$1,284,602 


$2,970,000 


$22,000 


$22,000 


22,000 


22,000 


368,945 


368,945 


100,000 


100,000 


149,040 


149,040 


225,000 


225,000 


150,000 


375,000 


56,250 


131,250 


147,290 


147,290 


29,817 


94,817 


- 


100,000 


- 


1,062,800 


46.858 


171.858 


$1,317,200 


$2,970,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



Funding Proposed 

Allocations Plan for 

for FY 1992-93 FY 1993-94 

.Tnft JfrpHinpfre. Training, and Placement 

Dropout Prevention 

Job Readiness 

Foster Children Vocational Counseling 

Mayor's Youth Employment & Educ. 

Workreation Expansion 

Early Exposure - ages 12-14 

Job Bulletin 

College Preparatory 

Youth Entrepreneur Projects 

Job Placement 

S.F.Unified Departmental Services 

Special Needs 

Total-Job Readiness, Training, and Placement $1,285,715 $2,970,000 

library. Recreation. Delinquency Prevention. Education 

Extended Library Children's Hours 

Off-site Library Services 

Age Appropriate Reading Materials 

Rec/Park Youth Services Planner 

Teen Multi-Service Centers 

Tutorials/Peer Support 

Alternatives to Detention 

Outdoor Recreation 

Cultural Enrichment 

S.F. Unified Departmental Services 

Special Needs 

Total Library, Recr., Delinquency Prev., Educ. $1.269.234 

Total Service Categories 



$244,822 


$244,822 


469,183 


554,183 


28,000 


28,000 


300,000 


535,000 


64,590 


64,590 


35,510 


145,510 


— 


85,000 


— 


100,000 


— 


85,000 


- 


185,000 


- 


664,285 


143.610 


278.610 



$321,543 


$321,543 


75,000 


75,000 


25,000 


25,000 


55,878 


55,878 


281,254 


731,254 


263,658 


373,658 


130,000 


280,000 


- 


110,000 


- 


300,000 


- 


450,766 


116.901 


246.901 


$1,269,234 


$2,970,000 


$5,156,751 


$11,880,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



Funding Proposed 

Allocations Plan for 

for FY 1992-93 FY 1993-94 



ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 

Personnel (salaries and fringe benefits) 
Technical Assistance 
Fiscal/Accounting Services 
Rent, supplies and equipment 
Miscellaneous 

Total Administrative Costs 

UNALLOCATED 

TOTAL CHILDREN'S PLAN 



$265,541 
29,084 
36,000 
77,576 
39.200 

$447,401 

$95.848 

$5,700,000 



$1,084,037 



228,963 
7.000 

$1320,000 



$13,200,000 



Comments: 



1. According to the proposed Children's Services Plan, some 
of the proposed expenditures from the Children's Fund can 
be used to leverage additional funding from Federal, State 
and other funding sources. The programs listed in the 
Children's Services Plan which reflect opportunities to 
receive additional Federal, State or other funding are as 
follows: 



Program 



Recommended 
Administrator 



SFUSD Children's Centers SFUSD 

Nurse- AFDC Intake DSS 

Health Outreach Worker SFUSD 

Neigh. Prev. Health Team DPH 

Healthy Start SFUSD 

GAIN Teen Program DSS 

Foster Children Voc. Coun. DSS 
Total 



Proposed 

Allocation 

Children's 

Fund 

$80,000 

22,000 

22,000 

368,945 

100,000 

225,000 

28.000 

$845,945 



Source of 

Additional 

Funding 

Prop. 98 

CHDP 

CHDP 

CHDP 

SB 620 

Other Grants 

Title IV 

FILS 



Amount of 

Additional 

Funding 

$1,500,000 

22,000 

24,000 

50,000 

300,000 

150,000 

225,000 

28.000 

$2,299,000 



SFUSD = San Francisco Unified School District 

DSS = Department of Social Services 

DPH = Department of Public Health 

CHDP = State Child Health and Disabilities Program 

FILS = Federal Independent Living Skills Program 

SB 620 = California Healthy Start Program 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



25 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

2. In November 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
resolution urging the Mayor to utilize the Fiscal Year 1992-93 
Children's Services Plan as the foundation for the 1993-94 
plan in order to maintain continuity in the provision of 
services. This resolution also provided that services 
contracted from community based providers would be 
provided for an 18 month period from January, 1993 through 
June, 1994 with the first nine months (January through 
September 1993) funded from the 1992-93 Children's Fund 
appropriations and the last nine months (October, 1993 
through June, 1994) funded from the 1993-94 Children's Fund 
appropriation. 

3. The proposed Children's Services Plan for 1993-94 is a 
guideline for implementation of the Children's amendment 
and does not itself appropriate funds. Appropriation of funds 
will be accomplished in the regular budget approval process 
for the City's 1993-94 budget. 

4. The Children's Services Plan for 1993-94 includes a total of 
$2,563,249 that is allocated to the San Francisco Unified 
Departmental Services fund ($385,398 for Childcare, 
$1,062,800 for Health and Social Services, $664,285 for Job 
Readiness, Training, and Placement and $450,766 for 
Library, Recreation, Delinquency Prevention, Education). 
These monies will be administered by the MOCYF to obtain 
children's services provided jointly by San Francisco Unified 
School District, other City departments and the Private 
Industry Council (PIC). The proposed Children's Services 
Plan for 1993-94 does not provide any specifics regarding 
these joint efforts. 

The proposed resolution to approve the Children's Services 
Plan for 1993-94 was continued at the January 13, 1993 
Finance Committee meeting to allow the MOCYF to meet 
with the San Francisco Unified School District, the other City 
departments and the Private Industry Council in order to 
refine the programmatic focus and processes for the use of 
the $2,563,249 designated for joint efforts. Mr. Frank 
Grimmelmann of MOCYF indicates that such meetings have 
occurred and a meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 
2, 1993. According to Mr. Grimmelmann, MOCYF will 
present a report to the Budget Committee at the Budget 
Committee meeting. 

Recommendation: Approval of the Fiscal Year 1992-93 Children's Services Plan 
is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

Items 3 and 4 - Files 102-92-13 and 101-92-31 

Note: These items were continued at the January 27, 1993 Budget Committee 
Meeting. 



Department: 
Items: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office of Children Youth and their Families 
(MOCYF) 

Ordinance (Item 4, File 102-92-13) to amend the 1992-93 
Annual Salary Ordinance to reflect the addition of five 
positions. 

Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance (Item 5, File 101-92- 
31) to fund the five new positions. 

$70,804 

Children's Fund for Fiscal Year 1992-93 

The proposed ordinance (File 102-92-13) to amend 1992-93 
Annual Salary Ordinance would create five new permanent 
positions as follows: 



No. Classification 

1 9786 Assistant to Mayor in 

1 9782 Assistant to Mayor I 

1 9740 Staff Assist. IV, Spec. Pjt. 

1 1632 Sr. Account Clerk 

1 1422 Jr. Clerk Typist 
Total 



Biweekly 
Salary 
Range 

$1,826-1,916 

1,490-1,564 

1,682-1,682 

1,136-1,375 

866-1,047 



Maximum 
Annual 
Salary at 
T o p Ste p 

$50,008 
40,820 
43,900 
35,888 
27.327 
$197,943 



The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 
101-92-31) would fund the proposed five new positions for nine 
biweekly payperiods from February 25, through June 30, 1993 
at Step one (all new positions) plus fringe benefits as follows: 



Permanent Salaries - Misc. 
Mandatory Fringe Benefits* 
Total 



$63,000 

7,8 04 

$70,804 



*Mandatory Fringe Benefits exclude Health Insurance 
which will not begin until August, 1993 in FY 1993-94 and 
Retirement for the Asst. to Mayor classifications that are 
not eligible for Retirement benefits. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



27 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



The proposed source of funds is the Children's Fund 
including $24,062 in unappropriated revenue of the 
Children's Fund and $46,742 previously appropriated for 
Other Contractual Services and designated for 
administration of the Children's Fund. 

Proposition J, commonly known as the "Children's 
Amendment", that was approved by the electorate in 
November, 1991, amended Section 6.415 of the Charter to 
require the establishment of the San Francisco Children's 
Fund. The San Francisco Children's Fund augments the 
fiscal year 1990-91 or 1991-92 (whichever was greater) level of 
expenditures for services and programs for children by 
requiring that the City set aside a certain percentage of 
property tax revenues in the Children's Fund to fund 
additional services for children. 

The Children's Fund for Fiscal Year 1992-93 is 
approximately $5.7 million. The 1992-93 Children's Fund 
included $3,275,126 for contractual services for the purchase 
of children's services from community based organization 
contractors. As a result of a Request for Proposal process, the 
MOCYF reviewed 170 Statement of Intents and 124 Final 
Proposals in order to select 40 community based organization 
contractors. These activities were performed with a staff of 11 
plus an ad-hoc (volunteer) advisory panel of 45 members. 
Drawing up the contracts, continuing monitoring of the 
contracts and processing payments to the contractors must 
be performed solely by MOCYF staff. The contracts were 
scheduled to begin on January 1, 1993. Some of the contracts 
and some agreements with other City departments have been 
finalized but most of the contracts and agreements are still 
being negotiated. MOCYF indicates that the existing staff is 
working overtime to finalize the remaining contracts and 
agreements but is counting on the proposed new staff to 
assist in finalizing the contracts and agreements, as well as 
establishing the monitoring, reporting and reimbursement 
systems for all of the contracts and agreements. 

The Controller's Office estimates that the ad valorem tax 
revenue for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 Children's Fund will be 
approximately $13.2 million. The Children's Services Plan 
for 1993-94 allocates $7,288,524 of this $13.2 million for 
contractual services. Thus, the total MOCYF budget and the 
allocation for contractual services for 1993-94 are more than 
double the 1992-93 funding level ($13.2 for 1993-94 versus $5.7 
for 1992-93 and $7,288,524 versus $3,275,126). 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



The MOCYF currently has a total City funded staff of ten (one 
position is funded through the Mayor's Office and the other 
nine are funded by the Children's Fund). Six of the existing 
City funded staff are permanent positions including the 
Director (9792-Asst. to Mayor VI), a Deputy Director (9790- 
Asst. to Mayor V), two Grant Coordinators (9786-Asst. to 
Mayor III), a Child Care Coordinator (9784-Asst. to Mayor II) 
and a Secretary (1446-Secretary II). Four of the existing City 
funded positions are full time temporary positions. The 
MOCYF also has some grant funded positions and unpaid 
volunteers and interns. 

Three of the four City funded temporary positions would 
become permanent positions if the proposed five new 
positions are approved resulting in a total staff of 12 positions 
(10 existing permanent positions plus five new permanent 
positions less three of the old temporary positions that would 
become three of the new permanent positions). 

The proposed five new position functional titles and duties 
and responsibilities are as follows: 

Grant Fisral Coordinator (9786 Assistant to Mavor UD 

This position will be responsible for developing financial 
reporting systems to disburse Children's Fund monies, for 
the financial monitoring and implementation of financial 
systems for all Children's Fund grant (contract) activities 
including those administered by other City departments that 
are funded by the Children's Fund, as well as community 
based organizations. 

Plannin g Coordinator (9782 Assistant to Mavor D 

The Planning Coordinator is responsible for developing the 
annual Children's Services Plan (CSP) that identifies the 
goals and priorities for the Children's Fund, conducting the 
initial stages of implementing the annual CSP including 
developing the Request for Proposals, coordination with other 
City departments that will be implementing CSP activities 
and will assist in the development and implementation of a 
long range Strategic Plan for Children's Services. 

Special Proje cts Coordin ator (9740 Staff Assist IV. Spec Pit.) 

The Special Projects Coordinator's primary responsibility is 
the coordination and/or implementation of special projects 
related to the Children's Fund. Additionally, the Special 
Projects Coordinator will assist the Department Director with 
issues related to the administration and implementation of 
special projects, planning and policy issues. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



Department Accountant (1632 Sr. Account Clerk) 

This position is responsible for reviewing and processing 
invoices for payment from grantees, for completing other 
internal accounting forms, maintaining financial records, 
establishing and maintaining cash internal controls and 
liaison with other City departments that provide children's 
services funded by the Children's Fund activities, regarding 
their financial operations. 

Receptionist/General Office (1422 Jr. Clerk Typist) 

The 1422 Jr. Clerk Typist is responsible for routine clerical 
and office work including answering phones, typing letters, 
forms and notices and other general office clerical duties. 

These items were continued by the Budget Committee in 
order to consider alternative means of staffing the MOCYF 
such as transferring positions from other City departments 
that provide baseline children's services to the MOCYF. The 
Mayor's Office reports that they have examined the budgets 
and staff of other baseline children's services departments to 
determine if some administrative positions can be 
transferred to MOCYF, but have not identified any positions 
that can be transferred at this time. The Mayor's Office 
further reports that they will continue this examination 
during the preparation of the Mayor's Budget for 1993-94 to 
identify positions that could be transferred to the MOCYF. 

Approval of the proposed ordinances is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



30 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

Item 5 - File 97-92-67 

Note: This item was continued at the Budget Committee meeting of January 
20, 1992. 



Department 



Item: 



Description: 



Board of Supervisors 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Section 
8.37 thereto, authorizing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 
to collect fees to defray the cost of mailing and providing 
copies of documents relating to the business of the Board of 
Supervisors. 

The proposed ordinance would allow the Clerk of the Board of 
Supervisors to charge and collect fees to defray the cost of the 
issuance of documents and services. The Budget Analyst's 
memo dated June 3, 1992, included recommendations on the 
amount of these fees based upon cost considerations and 
comparable fees charged by other California counties. Many 
of these recommended fees by the Budget Analyst have been 
incorporated into the proposed ordinance. The proposed 
ordinance does not specify whether these fees would be 
charged specifically to the public or whether the fees would 
also be charged to City departments. 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the Clerk of the 
Board of Supervisors to waive, partially or wholly, any of the 
fees authorized when exigent circumstances arise, such as, 
but not limited to the need to work cooperatively with other 
governmental agencies, or the inability of the requesting 
person to pay for the requested service. 

The proposed fees and the projected new revenues that would 
be generated by the proposed ordinance (based on information 
gathered by the Clerk of the Board's Office on weekly 
activities provided to the public) are as follows: 



Item 



Agenda-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(weekly mailing, annual subscription) 

Agenda-Budget Committee (weekly mailing, 
annual subscription) 

Agenda-Legislative Committee Meetings 
(regular mailing, annual subscription) 



Proposed 
Fee 



$120.00 



70.00 



35.00 



Current Estimated 
Level of Annual 
Activity Revenues 



70 



500 



1,500 



$8,400 
35,000 
52,500 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



Item 



Minutes-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(annual subscription) 

Minutes-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(mailing, per copy) 

Legislative packets-meeting of the Board of 
Supervisors (weekly mailing, annual 
subscription) 

Legislative packet-meeting of the Board of 
Supervisors (each set) 

Appeal Filing Conditional Use Permit (per 
filing) 

Late Filing-Application for Temporary Street 
Closure Denial (per filing) 

Appeal Filing-Temporary Street Closure (per 
filing) 

Certification of Documents (per document) 

Photocopies of Pages* 
First Page 
Each Additional Page 

Total Estimated Annual Revenues 



Proposed 
Fee 


Current 
Level of 
Activity 

30 


Estimated 

Annual 

Revenues 


$240.00 


$7,200 


3.00 


100 


300 


290.00 


35 


10,150 


4.00 


50 


200 


275.00 


9 


2,475 


120.00 


eo 


7,200 


58.00 


8 


464 


1.75 


360 


630 


.25 
.10 


5,208 
10,417 


1,302 
1.042 



$126£63 



* The total number of estimated annual occurrences for photocopying pages is 
15,625. The amount of estimated revenues assumes each document copied is 
three pages in length. Assuming each document copied on average is four pages 
in length, then estimated annual revenues would be $2,149. 

Comments: 1. As noted above, the estimated revenues are based upon 

current weekly activities for the public provided by the Deputy 
Clerks of the Board. However, if the Clerk of the Board begins 
charging for these services, it is likely that the current level 
of activities for the public would decrease, and therefore the 
total estimated revenues would also decrease. The level of 
activities for the public, and the amount of fees which would 
be waived for these services, cannot be determined at this 
time. The total estimated $126,863 in revenues detailed above 
are the maximum revenues which would be generated from 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



32 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



the proposed ordinance based on current activity levels. Mr. 
John Taylor, Clerk of the Board reports that there would be a 
substantial decrease in the level of activities if the Clerk of the 
Board charged for these services. Mr. Taylor estimates that 
the revised estimates would be as follows: 



Revised 
Revised Estimated 
Proposed Estimated Annual 
Fee Quantity Revenues 



Item 



Agenda-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(weekly mailing, annual subscription) 

Agenda-Budget Committee (weekly mailing, 
annual subscription) 

Agenda-Legislative Committee Meetings 
(regular mailing, annual subscription) 

Minutes-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(annual subscription) 

Minutes-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(mailing, per copy) 

Legislative packets-meeting of the Board of 
Supervisors (weekly mailing, annual 

subscription) 

Legislative packet-meeting of the Board of 
Supervisors (each set) 

Appeal Filing Conditional Use Permit (per 
filing) 

Late Filing-Application for Temporary Street 
Closure Denial (per filing) 

Appeal Filing-Temporary Street Closure (per 
filing) 

Certification of Documents (per document) 

Photocopies of Pages* 
First Page 
Each Additional Page 

Total Revised Estimated Annual Revenues 



$120.00 



70.00 



35.00 



240.00 



3.00 



25 



130 



130 



10 



50 



$3,000 

9,100 

4,550 

2,400 

150 



!90.00 


10 


2,900 


4.00 


15 


60 


175.00 


9 


2,475 


20.00 


60 


7,200 


58.00 


8 


464 


1.75 


100 


175 


.25 


750 


18S 


.10 


1,250 


125. 



$32,787 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



Whether or not there would be a substantial decrease in the 
level of activities if the Clerk of the Board begins charging for 
these services cannot be determined at this time. 

2. The Attachment to this report provides a comparison of 
the fees for the services charged by sixteen California 
counties. The fees charged by these other counties were the 
basis for the Budget Analyst's recommendations on the 
amount of fees to charge, many of which are incorporated 
into the proposed ordinance. As noted on the Attachment, 
each county surveyed, including all of the Bay area counties, 
already charges fees for services provided by the Clerk of the 
Board's Office. 



Recommendation; 



3. Enterprise fund departments such as the Airport, Port 
and Hetch Hetchy, reimburse the General Fund for 
administrative costs through the City's Cost Allocation Plan. 
According to the State Government Code, general 
government costs, such as costs incurred by the Clerk of the 
Board, may not be recovered from the public through the Cost 
Allocation Plan. The proposed ordinance would allow the 
Clerk of the Board to defray these costs which cannot 
currently be recovered under the City's Cost Allocation Plan. 
According to Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office, the 
annual revenues would be treated as Board of Supervisors 
departmental revenues of the City's General Fund. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 















Attachment 
page 1 of 2 




Agenda Agenda 
Full Board Committees 


•Proceedings 


Copies of 
•Packets 


Ordinances 


Research 


Alameda 


$1 10/yr 

NPO:$55/yr 


N/A 


$1.50/1 st pg 
50£/add'1 pp 


$1.50/1 st pg 
500/add'l pp 


$1 .50/1 st pg 

500/ add'l pp 


$3.50/15 min 


Alpine 


$ 10/yr 


N/A 


$25/yr 


25c/pg 


25epg 


$5/file 


Colusa 


SASE 


SASE 


SASE 


N/C 


500/pg 


N/C 


Humboldt 


$22.80/6 mos 
S45.60/yr 


N/A 


$22.80/6 mos 
$45.60/yr 


3e/pg 


1 oe/pg 


N/C 


Los Angeles SASE 


N/A 


N/C 


N/C 


1 OeVpg 


$11/15 min 


Madera 


$24/yr 
$2/mo 


N/A 


$1/1st pg 

20<2/add'l pp 


N/C 


N/C 


N/C 


Marin 


$35/yr, general 
(N/C: press, gov't] 


N/A 


$63/yr, inc. agenda 
(N/C: press, gov't) 


N/C (available 
to press only) 


25c/pg 


$6.40/15 min 


Mendocino 


N/C 


N/A 


$2/set or 
250/pg 


10c7pg 


250/pg, gen'l 
10c7pg, press 


N/C 


Monterey 


$24/yr, general 

(N/C: press, gov't, 

single requests) 


N/A 


$24/yr, general 


N/C 


N/C 


N/C 



Napa 



$50/yr 



N/A 



$125/yr 



$600/yr 20c/pg Actual staff 

. $1/pg from microfilm service cost 



Riverside 


SASE 


N/C 


N/C 


N/A 


100/pg 

50e7research 


$5/file 
minimum 


Sacramento 


$138/yr 


N/A 


$1.50/1 st pg 

200/add'l pp 


N/C 


$1 .50/1 st pg 

20c/add'l pp 


$5/15 min 


San Diego 


$ 10/yr 


N/A 


$25/yr 


N/A 


25e/pg 


$5/file 


San Mateo 


$50/yr 


N/A 


N/C 


N/A 


20e/pg 


N/C 


Santa Clara 


N/C 


N/C 


N/C 


N/A 


N/C 


N/C 


Sierra 


$30/yr 


N/A 


$70/yr 


50c/pg 


25c/pg 


N/C 



Legend: N/C: no charge: SASE: self-addressed stamped envelope; N/A: not applicable (service not provided); NPO: 
non-profil organization. 



35 



Attachment 
page 2 of 2 





Copies of Tape 
Recordings* 


Planning 
Appeals 


letter & legal sized 
PhotocoDies 


Notes 


Alameda 


$40/hr 
tape: $5 


N/C 


$1.50/1 st page 
500/add'l pp 




Alpine 


$10 


$50 


250/pg 




Colusa 


tape: $3.00 


$250 


500/add'l pp 


No fees charged to any 
government representative 


Humboldt 


$22/hr 
tape: $1.50 


N/C 


10(t/pg 




Los Angeles 


$8 vv/o tape 
$9 with tape 


400/sq ft N/C 
$8 svc. chg. 




Madera 


N/A 


N/C 


$1/1st pg; 200/add'l pp 




Marin 


$10 
tape: $3.50 


N/C 


250/pg 




Mendocino 


Minimum: $10 


$140 


250 public documents 
500 private documents 




Monterey 


$5 


$50 


$1/1stpg;5O0/add'lpp 




Napa 


$15 


N/C 


20£/pg 




Riverside 


$12.50 
including tape 


$415 


100/pg 
150/double-sided 


Riverside has not increased its 
fees in ten years. 


Sacramento 


$6.50 
tape: S3.50 


$1,871 


$1.50/1 st copy 
300/add'l identical copies 





San Diego 



San Mateo 



$10 

S3 
tape: S2 



$500 



N/C 



250/pg 



20e7pg 



Santa Clara N'C $305 $1.70 fee + 5c/pg 

Sierra $10/hr $200 25e/pg 

'Tape not included unless otherwise noted 



San Diego is currently 
updating its fee schedule 



Legend: N/C: no chare-: 3ASE: self-addressed stamped envelope; N/A: not applicable (service not provided); NPO: 
non-profit organization. 

36 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

Item 6 - File 12-93-4 

1. The proposed resolution would authorize the State legislative 
representative (i.e. the City's State lobbyist) to advocate for the City's ability to 
generate local revenues (AB 1930 one-half cent Sales Tax and to extend the City's 
Payroll and Gross Receipts Tax to banks and savings and loan associations). 

2. The Attachment to this report is the Budget Analyst's memo to the Budget 
Committee meeting of January 27, 1993 pertaining to a resolution (File 175-93-1) 
which would declare the intent of the Board of Supervisors to propose an increase in 
the transactions and use tax (i.e. Sales Tax) through the establishment of the San 
Francisco County Public Finance Authority. As noted in the Attachment, an 
estimated $45,320,000 in additional annual revenues to the City are anticipated to 
be generated from an increase in the Sales Tax rate of 0.5 percent. However, State 
legislation requires that 90 days elapse before San Francisco can begin collection of 
the increased Sales Tax. The proposed resolution would authorize the City's State 
lobbyist to pursue an amendment which would eh'minate this delay. 

3. State law currently exempts banks and savings and loan associations from 
the payment of local taxes. Instead, the banks and savings and loan associations 
pay a State Bank Tax "in-lieu" of the City's Payroll/Gross Receipts Tax. The 
proposed resolution would authorize the City's State lobbyist to advocate for State 
legislation that would permit the City to impose the Payroll/Gross Receipts Tax on 
banks and savings and loan associations, by repealing the current State Bank Tax 
payable by banks and savings and loan associations. 

4. Currently, businesses subject to the Payroll/Gross Receipts Tax must pay 
the higher of either 1.5 percent of their total payroll or, for most business, $3.00 per 
$1,000 of gross receipts, except for businesses with a calculated tax liability of 
$2,500 or less which are exempt from this tax. According to Mr. Richard Sullivan of 
the Tax Collector's Office, the revenues generated by imposing the Gross Receipts 
Tax on banks and savings and loan associations would depend upon how gross 
receipts are defined and applied to these businesses. The Controller's Office reports 
that the current State Bank Tax is 1.807 percent of net income. However, whether 
the local Gross Receipts Tax rate would be higher or lower than the current State 
Bank Tax depends upon the proportion of gross receipts that are net income. 

5. Based upon total payroll data provided by the State of California, 
Employment Development Department, it is estimated that a maximum of $20.5 
million in annual revenues to the City would be generated by imposing the City's 
Payroll and Gross Receipts Tax on banks and savings and loan associations in San 
Francisco. However, Mr. Sullivan reports that the Employment Development 
Department payroll data is not adjusted for work performed outside San Francisco, 
and therefore, the estimated annual revenues received would actually be less than 
$20.5 million. It is uncertain whether banks and savings and loan associations 
would transfer their operations to areas outside of San Francisco to avoid this local 
tax, or whether other cities would impose payroll and gross receipt taxes at rates 
comparable to San Francisco. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

Recommendation 

Approval of the proposed resolution, which would authorize the State 
legislative representative to advocate for the City's ability to generate local tax 
revenues, is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 6 

Memo to Budget Committee 

January 27, 1993 

Item 12 - File 175-93-1 

1. The proposed resolution would (a) declare the intent of the Board of 
Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco to propose an increase in the 
transactions and use tax (i.e. Sales Tax) in the City and County pursuant to 
Chapter 3.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and (b) establish the San Francisco 
County Public Finance Authority (Public Finance Authority). 

2. The Sales Tax rate which can be imposed within the State of California 
can be allocated into three distinct components: the State of California rate, the 
Bradley-Burns uniform local rate, and the optional locally imposed transaction and 
use tax rate. The proposed resolution would declare the intent of the Board of 
Supervisors to increase the transactions and use tax rate specifically, which 
hereafter will be referred to as the Sales Tax. 

3. AB 1930 is the bill which authorizes counties to increase the transactions 
and use component of the overall Sales Tax rate for the purpose of financing drug 
abuse prevention, crime prevention, health care services, and public education. AB 
1930 provides the following: 

• Counties may adopt a resolution by either or both a) a majority of the 
county Board of Supervisors, or b) by a majority of both the Board of 
Education of the San Francisco Unified School District and the Board of 
Governors of the Community College District, which declares an intent 
to propose an increase in the transactions and use tax rate (i.e. Sales 
Tax rate) and to establish a Public Finance Authority. A Public Finance 
Authority is established for the purpose of recommending a sales tax 
increase to the voters and for determining the distribution of the new 
revenues resulting from the sales tax increase. 

• The Public Finance Authority would be governed by a 10-member 
Board of Directors consisting of five members of the Board of 
Supervisors and a total of five members from both the Unified School 
District and the Community College District. The proposed resolution 
specifies that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors would elect five of 
its eleven members to serve on the Board of Directors of the Public 
Finance Authority. 

• Counties can increase the Sales Tax rate by either 0.25 percent or 0.5 
percent provided both of the following occurs: a) an ordinance is 
approved by a two-thirds vote of the Public Finance Authority which 
specifies how the proceeds will be spent (i.e. drug abuse prevention, 
crime prevention, health care services and public education), and b) the 
proposed Sales Tax rate increase is approved by a majority of the 
qualified voters. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 6 



4. On January 12, 1993, the Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified 
School District approved a resolution which declares its intent to increase the Sales 
Tax rate by either 0.25 percent or 0.5 percent and authorizes the creation of the San 
Francisco County Public Finance Authority. The current 0.25 percent Sales Tax 
surcharge for the Unified School District and the Community College District will 
expire on June 30, 1993. The Public Financing Authority would be established upon 
adoption of a similar resolution by the Board of Governors of the Community 
College District. According to Mr. Bob Golton of the San Francisco Unified School 
District, the rate of the proposed increase in the Sales Tax and the allocation of the 
Sales Tax proceeds from the increased rate would be decided by the Public Finance 
Authority. 

5. The total current Sales Tax rate is 8.5 percent in San Francisco. The 
proceeds from this tax are distributed as follows: 



Portion of 8.5 percent Sales Tax Rate 
6.0 percent 



1.0 percent 

0.5 percent 
0.25 percent 
0.5 percent 
0.25 percent 



8.5 percent 



Distributed to 

Current total to State of 

California; includes a 4.75 % 

base rate; 0.5% temporary 

surtax; 0.25% temporary 

surtax; 0.5% dedicated to 

realignment. 

Amount provided to City and 
County General Fund; 1993- 
94 projected is $90,640,000. 

County Transportation 
Commission 

Statewide County 
Transportation 

Bay Area Rapid Transit 
District 

Surtax, expiring 6/93, 
dedicated to the San 
Francisco Unified School 
District and the San 
Francisco Community 
College District 

Total Sales Tax Rate in 
San Francisco County 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 
Page 3 of 6 

Memo to Budget Committee 

January 27, 1993 

6. Based on information provided by the State Board of Equalization, on July 
15, 1991, a Sales Tax increase became effective which increased the total State- 
allocated Sales Tax by 1.25 percent, from the 4.75 percent base rate to 6.0 percent. 
The Governor's FY 1993-94 budget indicates that the 0.5 percent temporary surtax 
noted above in the 6.0 percent portion of the Sales Tax allocated to the State of 
California would not be extended past its June 30, 1993 sunset date. The Governor's 
proposal is preliminary, and subsequent State legislation, if approved, may extend 
the 0.5 percent temporary sales tax. As noted above, the current 0.25 percent 
surtax for the San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco 
Community College District also expires on June 30, 1993. Therefore, depending 
upon the State Legislature, and depending on the approval of this proposed 
resolution and the approval of the San Francisco electorate, the following scenarios 
could result: 

a) 8.25 percent. This Sales Tax rate would result if the proposed 
resolution is adopted which would enable the Public Finance Authority, 
with the approval of the voters, to increase the sales tax by up to 0.5 
percent, and the Governor's proposed elimination of the State 0.5 
percent surtax is approved by the State legislature (local 0.25 percent 
rate for schools expires). 

b) 7.75 percent . This Sales Tax rate would result if the Governor's 
proposed elimination of the State's 0.5 percent surtax is approved by 
the State Legislature, and the San Francisco voters do not approve the 
increase in the Sales Tax rate by 0.5 percent (local 0.25 percent rate for 
schools expires). 

7. Mr. Greg Ridenour of the Registrar of Voters reports that a special election 
would require a notice of 88 days after the Board of Supervisors calls for the special 
election. Mr. Ridenour estimates that a special election could cost the City up to $1 
million, depending on the number of initiatives which are placed on the ballot. AB 
1930 specifies that the any increase in the Sales Tax rate must be approved by a 
majority of the qualified voters of that county. However, the City Attorney's Office 
states a two-thirds voter approval is required (see Comment No. 10). AB 1930 also 
indicates that the costs of a special election could be reimbursed from the proceeds 
generated from the Sales Tax rate increase. Therefore, if the voters do not approve 
the increase in the Sales Tax rate, an additional cost of up to $1 million would be 
incurred by the City. However, if the special election is called as part of the 
November, 1993 ballot, the additional costs incurred would only be the minimal 
costs associated with additional voter pamphlet mailing and printing costs. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
January 27, 1993 



Attachment 
Page 4 ot 6 



8. The existing Sales Tax rates for San Francisco and other Bay area 
counties, as well as Los Angeles County, are as follows: 

Sales Tax Rate With 
Proposed 0.5 percent Increase 
Current in San Francisco but Without 
Tax Rate State 0.5 percent Surtax 

8.5 percent 8.25 percent* 

8.25 percent 7.75 percent 

8.25 percent 7.75 percent 

7.25 percent 6.75 percent 

8.25 percent 7.75 percent 

8.25 percent 7.75 percent 

7.25 percent 6.75 percent 

7.50 percent 7.00 percent 

8.25 percent 7.75 percent 



County 

San Francisco 

Alameda 
Contra Costa 
Marin 
San Mateo 
Santa Clara 
Solano 
Sonoma 
Los Angeles 



* Includes proposed 0.5 percent local Sales Tax increase (allocated to both the City 
and County and the Board of Education and the Community College District), and 
does not include the current .25 percent surtax for the San Francisco Unified School 
District and the San Francisco Community College District, which expires on June 
30, 1993. 

9. As noted above, if the State eliminates the 0.5 percent surtax and if San 
Francisco increases the Sales Tax by an additional 0.5 percent, to be allocated to the 
City and County and to the Board of Education and the Community College District, 
the total proposed Sales Tax rate for San Francisco would be 8.25 percent, which 
would be 1.5 percent higher than the proposed Marin County Sales Tax rate of 6.75 
percent, and 0.5 percent higher than the other Bay Area counties including San 
Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties. As noted, the difference 
between the Sales Tax in San Francisco and other counties assumes that San 
Francisco would be the only county which increases its Sales Tax. 

10. Mr. David Oppenheim of the California State Association of Counties 
(CSAC) reports that as a result of recent a) litigation, b) legislation, c) a voter 
approved initiative and d) contradictory legal opinions, the requirements which a 
county must follow to increase the Sales Tax rate are now very unclear. In addition, 
Mr. Oppenheim reports that it is also unclear as to whether or not counties may 
increase a Sales Tax rate with a majority vote or whether a two-thirds voter 
approval is required, based upon recent court decisions in San Diego and Woodlake. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 
Page 5 of ( 

Memo to Budget Committee 

January 27, 1993 

Therefore, Mr. Oppenheim indicates that CSAC policy is that the State Revenue 
and Taxation Code needs to be amended for counties to have any clear authority to 
increase a Sales Tax rate locally. 

Ms. Angela Karikas of the City Attorney's Office has indicated that a two- 
thirds majority of the voters would be required to increase the Sales Tax rate for the 
specific purpose of public education, drug abuse prevention and health care services. 

11. According to Mr. Oppenheim, there is current State legislation which is 
being discussed which would clarify the requirements for increasing a local Sales 
Tax rate. Mr. Oppenheim adds that most counties in California are not considering 
increasing the Sales Tax rate until these legislative ambiguities are clarified. Based 
upon inquiries to the Regional County Offices of the State Board of Equalization, 
neither Marin, San Mateo, Alameda nor Santa Clara counties are proposing to 
increase their local Sales Tax rate at this time. Therefore, if the Sales Tax rate is 
increased by 0.5 percent for San Francisco, the Sales Tax rate for San Francisco will 
be the highest of the adjoining counties in the Bay area. 

12. According to Ms. Sue Lee of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, 
the Chamber of Commerce has not yet developed an official position on the proposed 
Sales Tax rate increase, or determined the impact on businesses if the Sales Tax 
rate is increased by 0.5 percent. However, Ms. Lee notes that the Chamber of 
Commerce had previously remained neutral on the 0.25 percent Sales Tax rate for 
the San Francisco Unified School District and the Community College District. 

13. Based upon the revenue projections for FY 1993-94 included in the "Joint 
Report on the Anticipated Revenue Shortfall for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 Budget" by 
the Controller, the Mayor's Co-Budget Directors and the Budget Analyst, dated 
January 15, 1993, a revenue shortfall of $184 million is projected for FY 1993-94. 
This revenue shortfall is based upon the most recent revenue data, the Governor's 
State budget proposal (which includes an estimated $72 million in reductions for 
San Francisco) and preliminary estimates of the City's expenditure requirements for 
FY 1993-94. 

14. As noted above, in order to hold a special election, an 88 day notice is 
required beginning from the date the special election is called for by the Board of 
Supervisors. In addition, AB 1930 requires 90 days before the increased Sales Tax 
rate can be imposed. The additional revenues which are anticipated to be generated 
from increasing the local Sales Tax rate by one half cent (0.5 percent) are an 
estimated $45.320.000 annually , based on the FY 1993-94 revenue projections 
contained in the Controller's, the Mayor's Co-Budget Directors' and the Budget 
Analyst's joint report. However, given the requirements of the special election and a 
90 day State requirement before these revenues could be imposed, estimated 
revenues for FY 1993-94 would amount to $33.990.000 (effective 10/1/93) if the 
special election were held no later than June, 1993, and an estimated $11.330.000 
(effective 4/1/94) if the special election was held in November, 1993. In addition, it 
is possible that actual revenues received in FY 1993-94 could be reduced if 
consumers travel to other areas to purchase goods and services, given the difference 
between the Sales Tax rate in San Francisco and the Sales Tax rate in surrounding 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Attachment 
Page 6 of 6 

Memo to Budget Committee 

January 27, 1993 

counties. According to Mr. Ed Harrington, the Controller, San Francisco could 
request that the State adopt legislation which would expedite the 90 day State 
requirement in order to begin imposing a new Sales Tax in July, 1993, rather than 
having an effective date in October, 1993, which has been done with previous local 
Sales Tax increases. 

Recomm endation 

Approval of the proposed resolution, which would declare the intent of the 
Board of Supervisors to propose an increase in the transactions and use tax (Sales 
Tax) rate and establish the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 

Items 7 and 8 - Files 101-92-26 and 102-92-11 

Note: These items were continued at the January 27, 1993 Budget Committee 
Meeting. 



Department: 
Items: 



Amount: 



Superior and Municipal Courts 

Item 9 (File 101-92-26) is a supplemental appropriation 
ordinance to fund the increased salary of the proposed 
position reclassification. 

Item 10 (File 102-92-11) is an ordinance to amend the Annual 
Salary Ordinance to reclassify one position in the Superior 
Court. 

$5,450 



Source of Funds: Reappropriation of excess salary savings in the Superior 
Court Permanent Salaries account. 



Description: 



Action 



The proposed ordinance (File 102-92-11) to amend the 
Annual Salary Ordinance would reclassify one Superior 
Court position as follows: 



Classification 



Delete 0555 Executive Officer 
Add 0555 Chief Executive Officer 

Proposed Annual Salary Increase 



Biweekly 
Salary 
Range 

$3,263-3,777 
3,633-4,215 



Maximum 
Salary at 
Top Step 

$98,580 
110.012 

$11,432 



The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 
101-92-26) would reappropriate monies in the Superior 
Court's Permanent Salary account that represent salary 
savings in excess of the Superior Court's 1992-93 budgeted 
requirement for salary savings. The proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance would fund $4,656 for the increased 
salary of the reclassified position at the top step for 10.6 
biweekly payperiods from February 3, through June 30, 1993 
plus fringe benefits of $794. The Superior and Municipal 
Courts intend to fill this position at the top step. 

Pursuant to the 1991 Trial Court Realignment Act, the 
Superior and Municipal Courts have been in the process of 
reorganizing into one entity in accordance with the 
Coordination Plan submitted to the State in 1992. The 
Coordination Plan calls for establishing a Chief Executive 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



Comments: 



Officer to oversee the reorganization of the two courts into 
one entity. 

The Superior and Municipal Courts propose that the existing 
Executive Officer (department head) position of the Superior 
Court (that is currently filled on a temporary basis) be 
upgraded to Chief Executive Officer of the combined Superior 
and Municipal Courts. The proposed upgraded Chief 
Executive Officer would be responsible for both the previous 
duties of the Executive Officer of the Superior Court plus 
additional duties related to administering the combined 
Superior and Municipal Courts. The existing 
Clerk/Administrator (department head) position for the 
Municipal Court would not change. 

The proposed reclassification would change the title of the 
Executive Officer of the Superior Court to the title of Chief 
Executive Officer. According to the Superior and Municipal 
Courts, the Chief Executive Officer position will entail a 
larger scope of responsibilities over the combined courts than 
the existing Executive Officer position that is only 
responsible for the administration of a single court and 
therefore, should be compensated at a higher salary rate. As 
previously stated, the annual salary of the Chief Executive 
Officer position would increase by $11,432 from $98,580 to 
$110,012 at the top step. 

1. The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court states that the 
proposed upgraded Chief Executive Officer position is critical 
to the coordination and combining of the Superior and 
Municipal Courts into one entity. According to the Presiding 
Judge, the Chief Executive Officer will be responsible for 
continuing the reorganization of the Superior and Municipal 
Courts in order to comply with the requirements of the 1991 
Trial Court Realignment Act. 

2. The Superior and Municipal Courts report that a candidate 
for the proposed 0555 Chief Executive Officer position has 
been selected and is expected to begin employment on 
February 3, 1993, subject to approval of this legislation by 
the Board of Supervisors. 

3. The Superior and Municipal Courts have submitted the 
attached list of department heads' salaries for certain mid- 
size City departments. Employees of the Superior and 
Municipal Courts include 64 Judges and Court 
Commissioners plus 576 other employees for a total of 640 
employees. According to the Attachment, although all of the 
other departments listed have fewer employees than the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



combined total of employees of the Superior and Municipal 
Courts, the department heads in three of the other 
departments have salaries greater than the proposed salary 
level for the Chief Executive Officer position. 

4. These items were continued in order for the Superior 
Court to determine if the prospective candidate for the Chief 
Executive Officer position would agree to a salary of less than 
the proposed top step salary of $110,012. The Superior Court 
reports that it will be meeting with the prospective candidate 
late in the afternoon of Monday, February 1, 1993 and that 
the results of this meeting will be communicated directly to 
the Budget Committee on February 3, 1993. 

5. An alternative to hiring the new Chief Executive Officer at 
the top (fourth) step (positions in the Superior Court have 
only four steps) would be to hire the new Chief Executive 
Officer at a lower step. At the third step the annual salary 
would be $104,948 and the required supplemental 
appropriation could be reduced by $2,426 from $5,450 to 
$3,024. At the second step the annual salary would be 
$99,885 and the required supplemental appropriation could 
be reduced by $4,830 from $5,450 to $620. As previously 
noted, the amount requested under this proposed legislation 
is only to pay the salary differential and corresponding fringe 
benefits for the balance of the 1992-93 fiscal year. 

6. The earliest that the proposed new position could be finally 
approved is February 15, 1993. Therefore, the amount of the 
proposed supplemental appropriation should be reduced from 
10.6 to 9.8 biweekly payperiods to provide the needed funds 
for the period from February 15, through June 30, 1993. 
Should the Committee decide to approve a pay step lower 
than the top step, this request should also be reduced as 
follows: 

Biweekly Proposed Funding Required Funding 

Step Salary Salary Fringes Salary Fringes Savings 

2 $3,827 $4,656 $794 $490 $84 $4,876 

3 4,021 4,656 794 2,391 408 2,651 

4 (top) 4,215 4,656 794 4,292 732 426* 

* Savings is for payperiods only. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 3, 1993 



Recommendations: 



7. The Superior and Municipal Courts have already been 
reorganizing into one entity without this upgraded salary 
request. Therefore, the Budget Analyst concludes that this 
proposal to upgrade the salary of one of the department head 
positions is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors since 
the Superior and Municipal Courts will continue to have two 
department heads. 

1. Approval of the proposed ordinances to upgrade a 
department head position salary by $11,432 from $98,580 to 
$110,012 (at the top step) is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

2. Should the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed 
ordinances, the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance (File 101-92-26) should be amended to provide 
funding for 9.8 biweekly payperiods from February 15, 
through June 30, 1993. If the Chief Executive Officer position 
is not approved at the top step, this ordinance should be 
further amended to provide the needed funds for the balance 
of the fiscal year. The amended amount, as shown in 
Comment No. 6 on the prior page, would be based on the 
specific salary step approved by the Board of Supervisors. 




cc: Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Shelley 
President Alioto 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Bierman 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



48 



Attachment 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
DEPARTMENT HEAD SALARIES 



DEPARTMENT 



# OF 
EMPLOYEES 



TI TLE 



SALARY RANGE 



b Water Department 



530 



:> Sheriffs Department 540 

I) Parking Authority 483 

) Library 340 

) Purchasing 207 

) Port 250 

) Community Mental 614 
Health 



Department General Manager 
and Chief Engineer 

Sheriff 

Director, Parking and 
Traffic Commission 

City Librarian 

Director of Purchasing 
and Services 

Port Director 

Deputy Director of 
Mental Health 



$94,068-114,322 
100,464-100,464 

83,642-101,660 

64,838-103,116 

83,642-101,660 
106,132-128,986 

96,824-117,702 



49 



*£ CALENDAR — r>H*^ 

DOCUMENTS DEP- 
n/jo/Q^ MEETING OF 

BUDGET COMMITTEE AUG 2 7 IQQc 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ™ FRA NC/sc^ 

PU BUC LIBRARY 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1993 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS MIGDEN, HSIEH, SHELLEY 

CLERK: KAY GULBENGAY 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 



All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Budget Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of 
the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member 
of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the matter 
shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item. 



(a) File 94-91-8.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 

Public Utilities Commission, in the amount of $1,678,392, for project design 
and administration and indirect costs, for the following fixed facility 
rehabilitation projects (various locations emergency generators, cable car paint 
booth, LRV dom removal, LRV sand dispenser, various locations/gilley rooms, 
subway emergency lighting, Woods yard drainage, various locations trash 
compactors, Woods carpentry shop ventilation, and Woods transportation 
heating and ventilation.) (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Release of $1,678,392 recommended. Filed. 



File 101-90-57.3 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Airports 
Commission, in the amount of $6,633,375 for infrastructure repair and maintenance 
contract. (Airports Commission) 
(Continued from 2/3/93) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Release of $5,829,607. Filed. 



3. File 79-92-3.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Mayor's 
Office of Community Development, in the amount of $86,359, public service funding 
for the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families. (Mayor's Office of 
Community Development) 

(Continued from 1/20/93 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to February 24, 1993 meeting. 

4. File 102-92-15 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 
1992-93, Mayor's Office, reflecting the addition of two positions (Classification 9736 
Staff Assistant II, Special Project) 

(Civil Service Commission) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to February 24, 1993 meeting. 

5. File 101-92-36 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $100,000, Mayor's 
Office - OCD, for permanent salaries and related mandatory fringe benefits, other 
services and equipment purchase, for the creation of two positions; companion 
measure to File 102-92-15. RO #92155 

(Controller) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to February 24, 1993 meeting. 

6. File 207-92-11 . [911 Funding] Resolution urging the Mayor to authorize sufficient 
funding in the 1992-93 Police Department budget to fully staff the communications 
center. (Supervisors Shelley, Gonzalez) 

(Transferred from Health and Public Safety Committee 1/26/93 - 
Fiscal Impact) 

ACTION: Hearing held Amended (in title) line 2 by replacing "1992-93" with 
"1993-94". 

New Title : "Urging the Mayor to authorize sufficient funding in the 
1993-94 Police Department budget to fully staff the communications 
center." (Supervisors Shelley, Gonzalez) 
Recommended as amended. 



File 100-93-2 . Hearing to consider Joint Report by Mayor, Controller, and Budget 
Analyst regarding the 1993-94 fiscal budget year projected revenues and 
expenditures. (Supervisor Migden) 
(Continued from 1/27/93) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to February 17, 1993 meeting. 



City Report 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



February 8, 1993 

TO: Budget Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: February 10, 1993 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 94-91-8.2 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 

Source of 
Funds: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Requesting release of reserved funds for project 
management, design engineering services, construction 
engineering and related costs for fixed facility rehabilitation 
projects including emergency generators at various 
locations, cable car paint booth, Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) 
dome removal, LRV sand dispenser, gilley room (assembly 
and waiting area for transit operators) improvements at 
various locations, metro subway emergency lighting, Woods 
Facility yard drainage, trash compactors at various 
locations, Woods Facility carpentry shop heating and 
ventilation improvements, and Woods Facility transportation 
heating and ventilation improvements. 

$1,678,392 



Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) Section 
9 Formula Assistance Grant Funds 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



Description: In January of 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved 

Resolution No. 3-92 (File No. 94-91-8) authorizing the PUC to 
apply for, accept, and expend UMTA Section 9 Formula 
Assistance Funds in the amount of $26,819,276 and also 
approved $6,704,819 from various local match sources. The 
total sum of $33,524,095 was placed on reserve, pending 
submission of detailed project budgets. 

The proposed release of $1,678,392 out of prior reserved grant 
funds of $33,524,095 would provide for costs associated with 
project management, design engineering, construction 
engineering services and related costs for projects as follows 
(none of these costs are for actual construction costs): 



Emergency Generators at Various Locations 



$269,262 



Because the Municipal Railway provides transit service 24 
hours per day and seven days per week, transit vehicles must 
be available on a continuous basis. In order for such service 
to be available, it is necessary to upgrade existing emergency 
generators and to install emergency generators at those 
facilities which lack generators. 



Cable Car Paint Booth 



$110,198 



This project provides for the construction of a paint booth at the 
Cable Car Barn. At the present time, in order to completely 
paint a cable car, the car must be transported across the City to 
another facility which has a paint booth. The design for the 
proposed paint booth would meet current industrial and 
environmental regulations. 



Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) Dome Removal 



$61,257 



This project would furnish and install a Light Rail Vehicle 
(LRV) Dome Removal System at the Curtis E. Green Light Rail 
Facility at the Geneva Car Barn. At the present time, the 
removal of the dome over the articulated section of a LRV can 
only be performed at the Main Maintenance Building of the 
Green Light Rail Facility. This project will allow for the 
removal of the dome and allow repair work on the articulated 
section to be performed at both rail facilities. This addition will 
result in improved productivity at both sites. 



Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) Sand Dispenser 



$341,926 



This project will replace the existing sand dispenser located at 
the Curtis E. Green Light Rail Facility, Main Maintenance 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



Building with a new unit. The existing unit does not meet 
current industrial safety standards for dust control. In 
addition, the existing unit does not adequately meet the 
functional requirements of filling the sand boxes on the LRV's. 
As a result sand is spilled. Moreover, the process of loading 
and storing sand is cumbersome and labor intensive. 

Gilley Room Improvements at Various Locations $82306 

The Municipal Railway operates from seven (7) divisions 
located throughout San Francisco. Each division has a Gilley 
room which serves as an assembly room and waiting area for 
transit operators. This project would provide architectural, 
lighting and mechanical improvements to these assembly and 
waiting area rooms for transit operators. 

Metro Subway Emergency Lighting $185,673 

At the present time emergency lighting exists in the Metro 
Subway Stations and in the tunnels between stations. In the 
event of a power failure, the emergency lighting is activated. 
During the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, the emergency 
lighting was inadequate for the large scale evacuation of 
passengers. 

Woods Facffity Yard Drainage $225,498 

This project would provide the necessary work to improve the 
surface drainage at the John M. Woods Motor Coach Facility, 
Coach Storage Area. The proposed improvements would 
reduce the amount of oil and grease flowing from the yard into 
the existing sewer system. 

Trash Compactors at Various Locations $63,028 

This project will provide for the purchase and installation of 
trash compactors at various Municipal Railway Facilities. 
These compactors will allow for a reduction in fees currently 
charged for scavenger services. 

Woods Facility Carpentry Shop Heating and 

Ventilation Improvements $280,057 

The carpentry shop at the John M. Woods Motor Coach Facility 
serves as the main carpentry shop for the Municipal Railway. 
The principal work performed at the carpentry shop is the 
building of new Cable Cars and the rebuilding of existing Cable 
Cars. In addition, the shop provides carpentry support for the 
Municipal Railway. The existing ventilation system is 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



Project Budget 



inadequate in that the removal of sawdust does not meet 
current industrial and safety standards. This project will 
provide the engineering design and construction activities 
required to improve the existing system so that it meets 
current industrial and safety standards. 



Woods Facility Transportation Heating and 
Ventilation Improvements 



$57,187 



This project would provide the necessary work to modify and 
improve the existing heating and ventilation system in the 
Transportation Offices at the John M. Woods Motor Coach 
Facility. The existing system does not provide adequate heat 
during the winter and does not provide adequate cooling 
during the summer. 



Project Cost Total 
Unassigned Project Funds 

Total Requested Release of Funds 



$1,676^92 



_Lm 



$1,678^92 



The following budget would pay for existing workorder 
personnel reimbursed from the previously reserved grant 
funds in the total amount of $1,678,392. 

Description Amount 

Emergency Generators at Various Locations 

Project Management $27,303 

Design Engineering Services 201,505 

Construction Engineering 38,954 

Other Direct Expenses 1.500 

Subtotal $269,262 

Cable Car Paint Booth 

Project Management 20,378 

Design Engineering Services 52,102 

Construction Engineering 36,218 

Other Direct Expenses 1.500 

Subtotal 110,198 

Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) Dome Removal 

Project Management 13,652 

Design Engineering Services 28,488 

Construction Engineering 17,617 

Other Direct Expenses 1,500 

Subtotal 6L257 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) Sand Dispenser 



Project Management 


$121,956 


Design Engineering Services 


189,693 


Construction Engineering 


28,777 


Other Direct Expenses 


1.500 


Subtotal 




Gilley Room Improvements at Various Locations 




Project Management 


9,035 


Design Engineering Services 


67^15 


Construction Engineering 


6,456 


Subtotal 




Metro Subway Emergency Lighting 




Project Management 


13,652 


Design Engineering Services 


71,493 


Construction Engineering 


99,028 


Other Direct Expenses 


1.500 


Subtotal 




Woods Facility Yard Drainage 




Project Management 


13,652 


Design Engineering Services 


18L569 


Construction Engineering 


28,777 


Other Direct Expenses 


1.500 


Subtotal 




Trash Compactors at Various Locations 




Project Management 


13,453 


Design Engineering Services 


37399 


Construction Engineering 


10,176 


Other Direct Expenses 


1.500 


Subtotal 





$341,926 



82,806 



185,673 



225,498 



63,028 

Woods Facility Carpentry Shop Heating and Ventilation Improvements 

Project Management 9,035 

Design Engineering Services 160532 

Construction Engineering 108,990 

Other Direct Expenses 1.500 

Subtotal 280,057 

Woods Facility Transportation Heating and Ventilation Improvements 

Project Management 8336 

Design Engineering Services 35,244 

Construction Engineering 11,607 

Other Direct Expenses 1,500 

Subtotal 57,187 



Unassigned Project Funds 
Total 



LBffl 

$1,678392 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 

Comments: 1. The total amount of reserved funds from the Urban Mass 

Transportation Administration (UMTA) Section 9 Formula 
Assistance Funds is $33,524,095. The Budget Committee has 
already approved the release of $41,000 out of a requested 
release of $325,000 (File 94-91-8.1) for the Station Agent Booth 
Improvement Project. The Committee continued to reserve 
$284,000 pending submission of the construction contract, the 
contract cost details and the MBE/WBE status of the 
contractor. A total of $33,483,095 ($33,524,095 less $41,000) 
remains on reserve at this time. 

2. Mr. John O'Neill of the Municipal Railway advises that 
the $1,500 of unassigned project funds identified above in the 
project budget and descriptions should be assigned as other 
direct expenses for the Gilley Room Improvements at 
Various Locations project. This amount of $1,500 was 
inadvertently not specified in the Municipal Railway project 
budget. Under these circumstances, the Gilley Room 
Improvements at various Locations project budget should 
include $1,500 for other direct expenses increasing the total 
cost for that project from $82,806 to $84,306. 

3. Mr. O'Neill also advises that the anticipated starting and 
completion dates for the projects' design phases, the dates 
which the construction bids will be sought, and the 
anticipated starting and completing dates for the projects are 
as follows: 



Project 

Emergency Generators at Various Locations 
Cable Car Paint Booth 
Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) Dome Removal 
Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) Sand Dispenser 
Gilly Room Improvements at Various 

Locations 
Metro Subway Emergency Lighting 
Woods Facility Yard Drainage 
Trash Compactors at Various Locations 
Woods Facility Carpentry Shop Heating 

and Ventilation Improvements 6/93 12/93 1/94 5/94 12/94 

Woods Facility Transportation Heating and 

Ventilation Improvements 5/93 10/93 11/93 3/94 7/94 

Recommendation: Release reserved funds in the amount of $1,678,392 as 
requested. 



Project Design 


Bid 


Construction 


Start 


End 


Request 


Start 


End 


5/93 


11/93 


12/93 


3/94 


10/94 


3/93 


5/93 


6/93 


9/93 


2/94 


3/93 


5/93 


6/93 


9/93 


12/93 


5/93 


12/93 


1/94 


5/94 


12/94 


4/93 


9/93 


10/93 


1/94 


4/94 


5/93 


11/93 


12/93 


3/94 


10/94 


6/93 


12/93 


1/94 


4/94 


10/94 


3/93 


7/93 


8/93 


12/93 


5/94 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



Item 



File 101-90-57.3 



Note: This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of 
February 3, 1993 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 

Source of 
Funds: 



Description: 



Airports Commission 

Requesting release of reserved funds for infrastructure and 
maintenance contract. 

$6,633,375 



Interest income on unused balances of the Airport's capital 
project funds remaining from completed projects, as follows: 



Airport Capital Improvement Fund 
1967 General Obligation Bonds 
1975 Series A Revenue Bonds 
1977 Series B Revenue Bonds 
1981 Series C Revenue Bonds 
1983 Series D Revenue Bonds 
1990 Series E Revenue Bonds 
Total Source of Funds 



$ 7,466,608 

56,756 

382,135 

483,130 

4,475,268 

3,018,705 

2.021.000 

$17,903,602 



In March of 1991, the Board of Supervisors appropriated 
interest earned on the residual balances of funds from capital 
improvement projects that had been completed at the Airport 
in the amount of $17,903,602 (File 101-90-57) for the following 
projects: 

Replace Electrical Equipment and Change 

Field Lighting Voltage $ 2,900,000 

Construct High Speed Exit Taxiway 5,107,830 

Dike Reconstruction - Phase 5 1,300,000 

Centerhne Lights & Taxiway Lights Upgrade 1,595,772 

Extend Runway Safety Area - Phase I 3,000,000 

Runway Exit Fillet Widening- Phase I 1,000,000 

Electrical Power Distribution System Upgrade 3,000,000 

Total Request $17,903,602 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



Comments: 



Architectural and engineering design, inspections and 
project management for all of the proposed projects were to 
have been performed in-house by Airport staff, which 
accounts for $2,685,540 or 15 percent of the amount requested 
for each project. The remaining 85 percent of the $17,903,602 
requested, or $15,218,062, was placed on reserve pending 
selection of the outside contractors and determination of the 
contract cost details and the MBE/WBE status of the 
contractors. 

The Airport requests the release of $6,633,375 (see Comment 
No. 7) of the previously reserved funds of $15,218,062 to 
provide funding for Phase II of the Field Lighting Raceway 
Improvement Project. The total estimated cost for the Project 
is $22,600,000. 

However, it should be noted that the Field Lighting System 
Improvement Project is not included in the projects above 
(see Comment No. 2). 

According to the Airport, under the current raceway lighting 
system, maintenance crews must close down runways and 
taxiways to perform maintenance work, because of the close 
proximity of the cabling to the operational area. For safety 
reasons, the raceway circuits are worked on only during 
daylight hours when all lights are off. The proposed project 
would relocate all components of the distribution portion of 
the circuits away from the critical operational areas, thus 
permitting access to the components without closing circuits. 
The project would also provide a separate raceway system for 
each circuit, permitting maintenance crews to work on a 
single circuit at night without shutting down all circuits. 

1. The Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors 
previously released from the reserved amount of $15,218,062 
funding in the amount of $2,436,885 (File 101-90-57.1), and 
$1,724,441 (File 101-90-57.2) in May and August of 1991, 
respectively. Therefore, funding in the amount of $11,056,736 
remains on reserve. 

2. The Field Lighting Raceway Improvement Project is not 
included in the list of projects for which the Board of 
Supervisors previously appropriated the $17,903,602. Mr. 
John Martin of the Airport reports that since 1990, proceeds 
of Airport bonds sold must be expended according to time 
schedules imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. In order 
to adhere those schedules and avoid paying penalties, the 
Airport is required to constantly adjust its financing plans to 
expend restricted bond proceeds as quickly as possible. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



3. Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office reports that 
the Controller's Office does not object to the proposed use of 
funds and that approval of funds for the Field Lighting 
Raceway Improvement Project is within the purview of the 
Board of Supervisors. 

4. Mr. Martin reports that the projects for which the 
$17,903,602 was originally appropriated are all scheduled to 
be completed, using future capital project funds, subject to 
separate appropriation by the Board of Supervisors. 

5. Rosendin Electric has been selected to perform the 
construction work on the Field Lighting Raceway 
Improvement Project, based on its low bid of $4,758,863. The 
Airport has provided the following bid information: 

MBE/WBE Bid 

Bidder Status Amount 

Rosendin Registered MBE - Not Dis- 

Electric advantaged No Preference $4,758,863 

SWK, (J.V.) 1 None $5,772,400 

Abbet-Tick (J.V.) Certified MBE/10% preference $5,780,950 

Amelco Electrical 

R. Ruiz (J.V.) Certified MBE/10% Preference $7,781,131 

6. Phase I of the Field Lighting Raceway Improvement 
Project commenced in October of 1992. The entire Project is 
scheduled for completion in September of 1993. 

7. According to Mr. Martin, because the low bid for the 
electrical contractor work was $4,758,863 and the original 
estimate for that work was $5,415,000, the request for the 
release of reserved funds should be changed from $6,633,375 
to $5,829,607 as follows: 

Construction Subtotal $4,758,863 

AE&P/Contingency 1.070.744 

Project Total - Phase II $5,829,607 



Moint Venture. 

Architectural, Engineering and Inspection. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 

8. Because the Field Lighting Raceway Improvement Project 
was not included in the list of projects for which the 
requested funds were previously appropriated, the Budget 
Committee continued this item 1) in order to determine if the 
proposed "release of reserve request" is the proper 
mechanism to transfer funds to the Field Lighting Raceway 
Improvement Project and 2) to request that the Airport 
provide documentation regarding the original Board of 
Supervisors approval of the Field Lighting Raceway 
Improvement Project. 

The Airport has submitted the attached documents 
evidencing the original appropriation of funding for the Field 
Lighting Raceway Improvement Project. The Budget Analyst 
has compared these documents to the documents supporting 
our report regarding this $91,736,500 supplemental 
appropriation ordinance (File 101-89-114) that was approved 
by the Board of Supervisors in May, 1990 which includes an 
appropriation for the Field Lighting Raceway Improvement 
Project in the amount of $22.6 million. 

Mr. Lakey of the City Attorney's Office has advised the 
Budget Analyst that it would be legal for the Budget 
Committee to release the requested funds on reserve. 

Recommendation: Because the Field Lighting Raceway Improvement Project 
was not included in the list of projects for which the 
requested funds were previously appropriated, the decision 
as to whether to approve this release of funds is a policy 
matter for the Budget Committee. If the Budget Committee 
approves release of funding for the requested project, reduce 
the amount of the requested release of the reserved funds by 
$803,768, from $6,633,375 to $5,829,607. Continue to reserve the 
$803,768. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



- * 



O • w -^ 

» — • > 

> X - • 

• e » s 

ft • ta 

D c w 

5, — • 

» « » » 



B £ 



r 



O — w — 



t'i 



Attachment 
^age 1 of 2 




<N 5 



s I 



— 



s 

3 * 

8 = 

i i 
i !l 

B o» w 

8 

5 : 

1 

i I i 



8 



_<* 



1 s 

* 3 

|| 

E -O 



2 " 




■5 v o - o 



o ~ e 

w- » — t> 

ai r s * 



: I 

i * 

A 5 



* ° » 2 

i c 
I I 



- » s » 



s I 
I I . 
t » t 



8 

i o S i3 < o 



i I 



" a c 

Ml O *- 



^ 1 ^ 



a» e «• fi 



o — 

8 S 

*• o 



I T 3 ¥ 2 2 

& s a £ 2 £ 



o — 

8 £ 



E A 






i I 

? 3 



! c 

B I 

& 5 

* I 

s ~ 

6 3 



s f 

w c 

* t 
I £ 

III 

5 3 



** a k 2 

w H w r» 

o •» o 

9 z * j. 



mm (—*§■ 

$1 s 



2/2%=! 



•» o ~» 



11 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



lira 

Sia 



5 : 



So 

3i 



|gs 



tg§ 

fr4 






-4- 



a 



5 



a 9,1 



S883 2 



8 88 







wwMtaMOiBDiiifflKuwMMBwwwowMMawuuBKtaaMMMtQiaBiifloaiataaJM 






ii 



8S 
3 pj 






g o 

£ - 


if j 

B 1 




■/("^ ' 



Si 



063 



P? 






12 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 

Items 3. 4 and 5 - Files 79-92-3.1. 102-92-15 and 101-92-36 

Department 



Items: 



Amount: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 

Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families 

(MOCYF) 

Item 3 - Release of Reserved Funds (File 79-92-3.1) 

Item 4 - Ordinance (File 102-92-15) to amend the Annual 
Salary Ordinance to create two new permanent (grant 
funded) positions. 

Item 5 - Supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92- 
36) for Permanent Salaries, Mandatory Fringe Benefits, 
Other Services and Equipment. 

$100,000 



Source of Funds: 1993 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program 

Description: The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the Mayor's 

Office of Community Development to apply for, receive and 
expend the City's 1992 Community Development Block Grant 
(CDBG) entitlement from the U. S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Resolution No. 975-92 (File 79-92-3). 
The 1992 CDBG grant, as approved by the Board of 
Supervisors, includes a $100,000 allocation to the Mayor's 
Office of Children, Youth and their Families (MOCYF) for a 
new program in 1993 (CDBG funds are granted on a calendar 
year basis) entitled the Mayor's Employment Opportunities 
1000 (EO 1000) Program. The goal of the EO 1000 Program is 
to place 1,000 youth graduates of various youth training 
programs into permanent jobs. 

The $100,000 CDBG allocation for the EO 1000 Program 
includes an original estimate of $86,359 for two temporary 
positions to administer the EO 1000 Program and $13,641 
($100,000 less $86,359) for operating costs. The $86,359 was 
reserved pending Civil Service Commission review and 
classification of the two new temporary positions to 
administer the EO 1000 Program. 

The Civil Service Commission has completed their review of 
the two new temporary positions and has classified them. 
Therefore, the conditions for releasing the reserve on the 
$86,359 have been met. However, in order to establish 
accountability and control over the EO 1000 Program, the 
Controller's Office is requiring that the two positions be 
amended into the Annual Salary Ordinance as grant funded 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 

positions, rather than as temporary positions and that the 
$100,000 allocated to the EO 1000 Program on a grant basis be 
reappropriated to the MOCYF's regular project budget for the 
salaries and operating costs. 

Although the original intent of the proposed release of 
reserve (Item 3, File 79-92-3.1) was to provide funding for the 
two new temporary positions to administer the EO 1000 
Program and the conditions of the reserve have been met, in 
any case, the reserve on the $86,359 must be released in order 
to effect the reappropriation of the full $100,000 required by 
the Controller's Office to the MOCYF budget for salaries and 
operating expenses. 

The proposed ordinance (Item 4, File 102-92-15) would amend 
the 1992-93 Annual Salary Ordinance to create two new grant 
funded positions to administer the Mayor's EO 1000 Program 
as follows: 

Biweekly Annual 
No. Classification Salary Salary 

2 9736 G Staff Assistant II, Special Project $1,272 $33,199 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (Item 5, 
File 101-92-36) would fund the proposed two new grant funded 
positions, a portion of the MOCYF Director's salary that is 
considered to be an operating cost of the EO 1000 Program 
and other operating expenses for the 12 month period from 
January 1, through December 31, 1993, as follows: 

Personnel 
Permanent Salaries- Grant Funded Positions 
2 - 9736 G Staff Assistant II (2 x $1,272 x 26.1 bwpp) $66,398 
Estimated 5% COLA 1 for 1993-94 

(2 x $1,272 x 5% x 13.0 bwpp) 1,660 

10% of 9792 Assistant to Mayor VI 2 (Director 

of MOCYF - 10% x $71,930) 7.193 

Subtotal - Permanent Salaries $75,251 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 8.675 

Subtotal - Personnel $83,926 



1 MOCYF estimates that the cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the two 9736 Staff Assistant II 
positions will be 5 percent for FY 1993-94. 

2 The MOCYF Director would be supervising the proposed two new employees who are fulfilling 
the objectives of the EO 1000 Program. 

BOARD OF ST JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



Comments: 



Other Services 
Rent (pro-ration of MOCYF 
office space) and supplies 
Equipment 

Subtotal - Other Services 

Total 



$11,234 
4,840 



$16.074 
$100,000 



The Mayor's Office of Community Development currently 
contracts with 41 community based non-profit agencies to 
provide 1,712 jobs for youth. The proposed EO 1000 Program 
would be a separate program operated solely by the proposed 
two new positions to provide an additional 1,000 jobs for 
youth. The EO 1000 Program will focus on matching trainees 
of the City's numerous community-based employment 
agencies with existing opportunities for gainful employment 
with local firms. 

Another objective of the EO 1000 Program is to find jobs for 
graduate trainees in the two Department of Social Services 
programs entitled Greater Avenues for Independence 
(GAIN) and General Assistance Training Employment 
Services (GATES). 

The two new grant funded positions will be responsible for 
conducting an intensive outreach program, coordinating 
activities with community based agencies, recruiting 
employers, securing job pledges, screen prospective 
applicants referred by community based agencies and 
referring qualified applicants to employers. According to 
Mr. Al Walker of the Civil Service Commission, the two new 
positions are entry level and will receive direct supervision 
from MOCYF management staff (the MOCYF Director). 

1. Mr. Frank Grimmelman of MOCYF advises that the 
MOCYF would find a substantial portion of such added job 
placements with large businesses located in the downtown 
area as the result of the EO 1000 Program and other 
employment programs and contacts developed by the Mayor's 
Office. 

2. The proposed supplemental appropriation should be 
reduced by $10,128 from $100,000 to $89,872 to reflect that the 
starting date for these new positions will be February 23, 1993 
and not January 1, 1993 as had been requested. The required 
funding for the period February 23, 1993 through December 
31, 1993 (22.3 biweekly payperiods), as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



2 - 9736 G Staff Assistant II, Special Project 
(2 x $1,272 x 22.3 bwpp) $56,731 

Estimated 5% COLA for 1993-94 
(2 x $1,272 x 5% x 13.0 bwpp) 1,660 

10% of 9792 Assistant to mayor VI (Director 
of MOCYF - 10% x $71,930) 7.193 

Subtotal - Permanent Salaries $65,584 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 8.214 

Subtotal - Personnel $73,798 

Other Services and Equipment Purchase 16.074 

Total Funding Required $89,872 

Total Requested Funding 100.000 

Savings $10,128 

3. Mr. Anthony Lincoln of MOCYF advises that the proposed 
EO 1000 Program is an MOCD program and not connected 
with the MOCYF operations. Under these circumstances, Mr. 
Lincoln advises that 10 percent of his time would not be used to 
supervise the two new employees who are fulfilling the 
objectives of the EO 1000 Program. Therefore the proposed 
supplemental appropriation ordinance should be further 
reduced to delete funding for the ten percent of the 9792 
Assistant to the Mayor VI position at $7,193 for a total savings 
of $17,321 ($10,128 from the reduction in salaries for the two 
new positions to reflect the correct effective date of these 
positions plus $7,193 deletion of the ten percent funding of the 
MOCYF Director's salary). 

4. The EO Program, including the proposed two new positions, 
was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors as part of 
the 1993 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 
Program but funds were reserved by the Board pending Civil 
Service Commission review and classification of the two new 
positions. The Civil Service Commission has now completed 
this classification action, consistent with the prior reservation 
of funds by the Board of Supervisors. 

5. Mr. Lincoln requests that the proposed resolution be 
continued to the call of the Chair to allow MOCYF and MOCD 
to reevaluate the administrative structure of the proposed EO 
1000 Program. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 

Recommendations: Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation and release 
funds as follows: 

1. In accordance with Comments Nos. 2 and 3, above, 
reduced the proposed supplemental appropriation (File 101- 
92-36) by $17,321 from $100,000 to $82,679, as follows: 

Line 11 - Reduce the Debit amount for Permanent Salaries 
by $17,321 from $100,000 To $82,679 and the Credit amount 
for Permanent Salaries by $16,860* ($9,667 from the 
reduction in salaries for the two new positions plus $7,193, 
deletion of the ten percent funding of the MOCYF 
Director's salary) from $75,251 to $58,391. 

Line 12 - Reduce the Credit amount for Fringe Benefits by 
$461* from $8,675 to $8,214 corresponding to the reduction 
in salaries for the two new positions. 

* $16,860 plus $461 equals $17,321. 

2. Reduce the proposed release of reserved funds (File 79-92- 
3.1) by $17,321 from $86,359 to $69,038 in order to continue to 
reserve the savings which result by reducing the 
appropriations for salaries and fringe benefits. 

3. It is also recommended that the Budget Committee direct a 
letter to the Mayor's Office of Community Development 
(MOCD) requesting that the MOCD provide the Board of 
Supervisors with a progress report on the number of jobs 
created for youth, after six months of operation of the 
proposed EO 1000 Program. Such a report would assist the 
Board of Supervisors in analyzing the 1994 Community 
Development Block Grant Program budget scheduled for 
submission in October of 1993. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



Item 6 - File 100-93-2 

Note: This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of January 
27, 1993. 

This item is a hearing to consider the Joint Report by the Mayor, the 
Controller and the Budget Analyst regarding the anticipated General Fund 
revenue shortfall for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 budget. Refer to the separate report 
of January 15, 1993 previously issued by the Mayor's Co-Budget Directors, the 
Controller and the Budget Analyst. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 

Item 7 -File 207-92-11 

Note: This item was transferred to the Budget Committee from the Health and 
Public Safety Committee meeting of January 25, 1993, because of Fiscal 
Impact. 

Department Police Department 

Item: File 207-92-11. Resolution urging the Mayor to authorize 

sufficient funding in the FY 1993-94 Police Department budget to 
fully staff the Communications Center. 

Background: The San Francisco Police Department's Communications 
Control Center is designated as the Public Safety Answering 
Point (PSAP) for 911 emergency calls in the City and County of 
San Francisco. PSAP operators (call evaluators) receiving 911 
bona-fide emergency calls transfer such calls to Police 
dispatchers, or to call evaluators at the Health Department or the 
Fire Department. The 911 Emergency Telephone System is one 
part of a three component process that delivers emergency 
assistance services to the public. The other two components are 
the dispatch systems for police, health, and fire protection 
services and their respective service delivery units. The major 
functions performed in the Police Department's 
Communications Center are as follows: 

Receiving 911 calls 

Requesting translation services, when required 

Evaluating 911 calls 

Transferring 911 calls to the proper agency 

Dispatching Police units in response to 911 calls 

Receiving Police non-emergency calls via 553-0123 

Evaluating 553-0123 calls 

Transferring non-emergency calls to other agencies, 

when appropriate 

Dispatching Police units in response to 553-0123 call 

Recording 911 emergency calls and Police radio 

communications 

Comments: 1. The 1987 audit report submitted by the Budget Analyst made a 
number of recommendations concerning recruitment, 
examination, selection, and training of 911 emergency 
communications dispatchers. The 1991 joint audit report 
submitted by the Controller and the Budget Analyst contains a 
total of 51 recommendations for improving the operations of the 
Communications Center. Those 51 recommendations were made 
in the areas of management, personnel, operations, 
budgeting/staffing, Patrol Bureau, 1987 audit follow-up, and 
miscellaneous issues. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



2. A follow-up joint report issued by the Controller and the Budget 
Analyst in December of 1992 found that the Police Department 
had implemented 21 of the 51 recommendations and that an 
additional 23 recommendations are in the process of being 
implemented. The Department has not yet begun to implement 
the remaining 7 recommendations. 

The December, 1992, follow-up audit report commented on the 30 
recommendations either not implemented or not fully 
implemented. Such recommendations included: 

a. Clearly articulating performance standards and 
developing management reports summarizing workload and 
disposition of calls. 

It is difficult for the Police Department, Police 
Commission, Communications Division staff, and others 
to easily determine if calls are being answered in a more 
timely and effective manner than they were in the past. 

b. Converting the top two levels of management in the 
Division from sworn officers to civilians. 

The Communications Division continues to lack stability 
in its leadership, which affects its ability to provide 
effective technical and administrative direction. 

c. Effectively curtailing high levels of absenteeism that may 
be due to disciplinary problems, illness, low employee 
morale, and other factors. 

The Communications Division will continue to be unable 
to fully staff any particular shift, even with additional 
staff. 

d. Increasing training resources provided dispatchers. 

Some dispatchers do not have the expertise or confidence 
to assure that they properly handle incoming calls. 

e. Developing a long-term City-wide plan for more efficiently 
and effectively organizing and configuring dispatch 
operations. 

Efficiencies that could be realized through a coordination 
of dispatch related efforts by the Police Department, Fire 
Department, and Department of Public Health and 
Parking and Traffic Departments may not occur. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



Description: 1. The proposed resolution, and five companion resolutions that 
were approved by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting of 
February 1, 1993, are concerned with the foregoing and other 
Communications Center issues. 

2. The proposed resolution (File 207-92.11) would urge the Mayor 
to authorize sufficient funding in the FY 1993-94 Police 
Department budget to fully staff the Communications Center. 
The FY 1992-93 Police Department budget includes funding for 
113 Police Communications Dispatchers. However, currently, 
only approximately 86 such dispatchers have been working at the 
Communications Center, due to sick leave, disability and other 
factors. This condition has resulted in instances when the 
Communications Center has been severely understaffed. 

3. The Police Department has a pending request for a 
supplemental appropriation and an amendment to the FY 1992- 
93 Annual Salary Ordinance that would authorize an additional 
13 Police Communications Dispatcher positions in the 
Communications Center, at an additional estimated annual cost 
of approximately $45,000 per additional Police Communications 
Dispatcher. Attached to this report is an advance copy of the 
proposed amendment to the 1992-93 Annual Salary ordinance. 
(Attachment I). The total approximate additional cost for the 13 
additional Police Communications Dispatchers would be 
$585,000, annually. These 13 additional Police Communications 
Dispatcher positions have also been requested in the Police 
Department's FY 1993-94 budget. 

Attachment I also references three additional Senior Police 
Coinmuiiications Dispatcher positions. The Board of Supervisors 
previously approved a resolution (File 207-92-11.2) urging the 
Mayor to urge the Police Commission to civilianize the 
supervisorial positions in the Police Department. A part of that 
request was for four additional Senior Police Police 
Communications Dispatcher positions, as shown in paragraph 
4.a.(l) of this report. Lieutenant Lawrence Ryan of the Police 
Department reports that the fourth Senior Police 
Communications Dispatcher position will be requested in the 
near future. 

The addition of 13 Police Communications Dispatcher positions 
would result in a total of 126 authorized Police Communications 
Dispatcher positions in the FY 1992-93 Annual Salary Ordinance. 
The 1991 joint audit report submitted by the Controller and the 
Budget Analyst contains a staffing analysis that shows a 
requirement for 105 Police Communications Dispatcher 
positions, not including staffpersons who are on extended 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



absences, such as for a disability. The December 11, 1992, joint 
report submitted by the Controller and the Budget Analyst shows 
a total of 17 staffpersons as being on extended absences (see Point 
4d of this report, which is an extract of the December 11, 1992, 
joint report showing the disposition of staffing in the 
Communications Center as of November 13, 1992). Those 17 
staffpersons on extended absences, when added to the 
requirement of 105 positions required for staffing the 
Communications Center on a recurring basis, equals 122 Police 
Communications Dispatcher positions. However, the Police 
Department has recently developed performance goals, related to 
the 911 system and the non-emergency line telephone response 
times, that have increased the need for staffing in the 
Communications Center to 126 positions. Attached is a 
memorandum from the Police Department providing 
justification for the 126 Police Communications Dispatcher 
positions. (Attachment ID. 

The December, 1992, joint report of the Controller and the Budget 
Analyst notes that the Police Department had expended a total of 
$193,492 in overtime costs for Police Communications Dispatcher 
services during the period of July 1, through November 20, 1992 
That rate of overtime usage extended to the end of FY 1992-93 
would pay for the equivalent of approximately 11.7 full-time 
equivalent Police Communications Dispatcher positions. Such 
excessive overtime expenditures for Police Communications 
Dispatcher services could be avoided by having sufficient staffing 
in the Communications Center. 

Because of the emergency nature of the calls that are received by 
the 911 dispatchers, staffing shortages at the Communications 
Center create potentially life-threatening situations when calls 
are not answered in an expedient manner. 

4. The five companion resolutions concerning the 
Communications Center that were approved by the Board of 
Supervisors at its meeting of February 1, 1993, some of which 
would be implemented by the additional staff positions provided 
for in the subject resolution, are as follows: 

a. File 207-92-11.2 urged the Mayor to urge the Police 
Commission to civilianize the supervisorial positions in the 
Police Department Communications Center. The 
supervisorial positions are currently staffed by sworn officers 
of the Police Department, with a Police Department Captain 
in charge of the Communications Center and Police 
Lieutenants as Watch Commanders. The joint audit report of 
the Controller and the Budget Analyst and the report of the 
Mayor's Task Force on the 911 emergency system contained 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



recommendations to replace the sworn officer leadership in 
the Communications Center with civilians. Significant 
benefits of implementing that recommendation include 
enhancing the stability and the technical proficiency of the 
Communication Center's leadership. 

According to Deputy Chief Reed, the Police Department is 
requesting the addition of the following supervisory and 
management level civilian positions in the FY 1993-94 budget 
for the Communications Center in order to civilianize the 
positions, increase leadership potential, and provide 
communications expertise: 

(1) Four 8239 - Senior Police Communications Dispatcher 
positions, which would result in a total of thirteen 8239 
positions. The cost of the additional four 8239 positions 
would be approximately $235,000 in salary and fringe 
benefits costs. 

(2) One 8240 - Police Communications Shift Manager 
position which would result in a total of four 8240 
positions. The cost of the additional 8240 position would be 
approximately $67,500 in salary and fringe benefits costs. 

(3) One 9205 - Communications Coordinator (subject to 
Civil Service classification) position, which would have a 
cost of approximately $84,959 for salary and fringe 
benefits. 

The replaced sworn officers could be transferred to patrol or 
other duties. 

b. The Communications Center processes approximately 
2,850 calls per day. Approximately 1,700 of those calls are 
received on 911 emergency circuits, and the remaining 
approximately 1,150 calls are received on the Police 
Department's 553-0123 non-emergency lines. 

File 207-92-11.3 urged the Mayor to urge the Police 
Commission to institute a public education program to 
inform the public of the proper use of 911. Many calls made 
using a 911 emergency line are not of an emergency nature, 
and could appropriately be processed on the non-emergency 
lines, freeing Police Communications Dispatchers to service 
bona-fide emergency calls in a more expeditious manner. 
The non-emergency calls could be handled by personnel in 
the Communications Center other than those servicing 911 
emergency calls, or by other Police Department units. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



A coordinated, well-publicized public education program to 
educate the public about the proper uses of the 911 emergency 
system could result in improved 911 emergency 
responsiveness and better public service. Deputy Chief Reed 
reports that the Police Department is currently preparing a 
public education program, including public service 
announcements on television and radio. Deputy Chief Reed 
also reports that the costs associated with the public 
education program are in-kind and are minimal. 

c. The joint report submitted by the Controller and the Budget 
Analyst in December of 1992 reports that the waiting period 
for a response to a 911 emergency call increased in FY 1991- 
92 to an average of 5.27 seconds from and average of 2.0 
seconds during the period of August 1 through December 31, 
1990. Further, the waiting period for a response to a non- 
emergency call increased in FY 1991-92 to an average of 
155.19 seconds from an average of 52.1 seconds during the 
period of August 1 through December 31, 1990. 

File 207-92-11.4 urged the Mayor to urge the Police 
Commission to establish response-time goals for the 911 and 
non-emergency lines. A timely response to both emergency 
and non-emergency calls is essential to the safety of all San 
Franciscans. Establishing acceptable response-time goals for 
the 911 emergency and non-emergency numbers would also 
assist the Police Department in determining the level of 
staffing required to achieve acceptable 911 emergency and 
non-emergency phone services. 

Deputy Chief Reed reports that the Police Department has 
proposed response time goals for the 911 emergency lines and 
the 553-0123 non-emergency lines, as follows: 

Answer 911 emergency calls within five seconds, 75 
percent of the time; 

Answer 911 emergency calls within 10 seconds, 95 percent 
of the time; 

Do not exceed an abandoned call rate in excess of two 
percent on 911 emergency calls; 

Answer 553-0123 non-emergency calls within 45 seconds, 
95 percent of the time. 

d. The joint report submitted by the Controller and the Budget 
Analyst in December of 1992 reports that as of November 13, 
1992, only 84 of 113 Police Communications Dispatcher 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



positions authorized in the Police Department's FY 1992-93 
budget were available for duty in the Communications 
Center. The disposition of Police Communications 
Dispatchers as of November 13, 1992, was as follow: 

Authorized 8238 Communications Dispatchers 113 

Unfilled Positions -8 

Long-term Leaves of Absence -7* 

Long-term Workers' Compensation -5* 

Short-term Workers' Compensation -5* 
Communications Dispatchers working outside 

of the Communications Center -4 
Communications Dispatchers Available for Duty 84 

*17 positions on extended absences. 

File 207-92-11.5 urged the Mayor to urge the Police 
Commission to develop a program to reduce dispatcher 
injuries and illnesses and to maintain staffing at authorized 
levels. Staff availability for duty in the Communications 
Center can be increased significantly within the existing 113 
authorized positions if there were a reduction in the number 
of dispatchers unable to work because of injury or illness. 

Deputy Chief Reed reports that the Police Department is 
taking steps to reduce Police Communications Dispatcher 
injuries and illnesses and that the Health Department has 
toured the Communications Center to examine the 
ergonomic quality of the equipment. Deputy Chief Reed 
reports that, based on the recommendations of the Health 
Department, the Police Department has established a 
training program for all dispatchers, to ensure the proper 
use of the equipment. 

Deputy Chief Reed also reports that the Police Department is 
proposing to work with the Retirement Board, Civil Service, 
United Public Employees Union - Local 790 and the Police 
Department Surgeon to identify functions that could be 
performed by limited-ability Police Communications 
Dispatchers who are unable to perform regular 
communications dispatching duties. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



Conclusions: 



e. File 207-92-11.6 urged the Mayor to urge the Police 
Commission to find alternatives to installing an automated 
attendant system on the non-emergency line, the Police 
Commission had previously recommended that an 
automated attendant system on the Communications center 
non-emergency line be acquired. This system, would respond 
to incoming calls and would transmit a recorded message 
providing opportunities to be routed to other phone numbers 
until an operator answers. However, many callers using the 
non-emergency number are in fact calling to report an 
emergency, and need immediate emergency services. As 
stated in that resolution, the resources used to purchase and 
install an automated attendant system should be redirected 
toward hiring more personnel to answer calls in the Police 
Department's Communications Center. 

Deputy Chief Reed reports that all plans for installing an 
automated attendant system have been placed on hold 
pending further study and consideration by all interested 
parties, including the 911 Task Force, other public officials, 
and community groups. Deputy Chief Reed further reports 
that the goal of the Communications Division is to have calls 
answered by a live operator who makes an evaluation of the 
call and transfers it to the proper unit. 

The Budget Analyst believes that the Police Department has 
provided sufficient justification for the 13 additional Police 
Communications Dispatcher positions until such time as the 
Department can reduce its rate of extended absences. 
However, the Budget Analyst believes that the precise 
number of additional positions to be approved is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors since the 1993-94 
budgetary funding priorities of all City departments have not 
yet been submitted to the Board of Supervisors by the Mayor. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



26 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 10, 1993 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution which urges the Mayor to 
provide sufficient funds in the FY 1993-94 Police Department 
budget to fully staff the Communications Center. 



Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Shelley 
President Alioto 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Bierman 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SI JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



FILE NO. 



//?.?- f -2- /</- 



Attacliment: I 
Y^IOGET ANALYST' 

ORDINANCE NO. 



PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT SAL. ORD. AMEND. NO. 11 

AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 250-92 (ANNUAL SALARY ORDINANCE, 1992-93) REFLECTING 
THE ADDITION OF SIXTEEN POSITIONS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT. 
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco: 

Section 1. The hereinafter designated section and items of Ordinance No. 
250-92 (Annual Salary Ordinance, 1992-93) are hereby amended so that the same 
shall read as follows: 



(Amend- 
ment) 



13 added 
3 added 



No. 
Pos, 



13 
3 



Class & 
Item No. 

Department: 

Division: 

Section: 

Program: 

Fund: 

Index: 

Proj /Phase: 

Object: 



Class Title 



Compensation 
Schedule 



38 Police Commission 
00 Police 
00 Police 
0000 No Program Defined 
01001 General Fund 
580019 SFPD-Commission and Chief's Off 
000/00 Unassigned Title 

001 Permanent Salaries-Misc. 



8238 N Police Communications Dispatcher SC $1 336B1 61 8 

8239 N Sr. Police Communications Di spatcher . .SC 1 51 3B1835 



APPROVED AS TO CLASSIFICATION: 
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 



APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

LOUISE H. RENNE, CITY ATTORNEY 



By:. 



#6457C 



No. 11 



Civil Service Co.Tini ss ion 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



28 



Attachment II 



Memorandum 




8an Francisco Polled Department 



To: Lieutenant Lawrence Ryan 
Commanding Officer 

From: John Kaye 

Senior Analyst 

Date: February 5, 1993 

Subject: Justification for the 126 8238 Dispatcher Positions 

We are currently allocated 113 8238-Dispatcher positions in our 
1992-93 budget. We have requested an additional 13 positions in our 
1993-94 budget. 

Although we are allocated 113 dispatchers, we only have 86 full time 
equivalents currently on staff. They are supplemented by 16 police 
officers, who have been taken off their regular police assignments and 
by an average of 500 hours of overtime a pay period (this had been 800 
hours until recently). The reduced average overtime equals 13,000 
hours a year which, when divided by 1632 hours a year per full-time 
equivalent (FTE), comes to eight (8) full-time equivalents. 

We are therefore functioning today with 110 FTEs and not approaching 
our response time goals i.e., answering 95% of all 0123 
(non-emergency) calls within 45 seconds; answering 95% of all 911 
(emergency) calls within 10 seconds and answering 75% of them within 
five (5) seconds. 

In order to adequately staff Communications phone lines and the nine 
radio channels we would need 23 dispatchers for the day watch. 23 for 
the swing watch and 21 for the midnight watch. These 67 positions for 
8 hours a day and 365 days a year would come to 120 FTEs (67 x 8hrs. x 
365 - 195,640 divided by 1632 hours per year FTE - 120). 

This number of 120 FTEs takes into consideration that employees use 

vacation time, sick time, and holidays off. It does not include 

people on long-term leaves be they maternity, personal, workers comp, 

SDI, or disciplinary leaves. There are eight dispatchers on leave at 
this writing. 

This number of 120 FTEs does not consider the long lag-time between 
the hiring of a dispatcher and the eight to 12 months of training 
before they are ready to handle calls on their own. In the time it 
takes to train 14 dispatchers, soven veteran dispatchers will have 
left the Department. 

In order to have 120 dispatchers working In Communications, the 
Department should budget at least 12 extra positions to compensate fcr 
long-term leaves snd the training leg-time. I :i re-.ognition of the 
fiscal constraints, the Department has elected to ;ompromise with its 
request of 126 B238 Dispatchers. 

29 567G73 



\ c ALENDAR - A4lo*5 ' 

DOCUMFNTS DEPT. 

2 ^N MEETING OF qq ~ 

x^BUDGET COMMITTEE rtd 1 WO 

, -L h 3 B ARD OF SUPERVISORS SAN FRANC lSCO 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1993 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS MIGDEN, HSIEH, SHELLEY 

CLERK: KAY GULBENGAY 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 

counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

1. File 7-93-3 . [Public Transportation] Resolution approving a revised fare schedule 
for the Municipal Railway. (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

File 7-93-3.1 . Hearing held. Resolution prepared in and reported out of 
committee entitled: "Making a finding concerning proposed revisions of 
Municipal Railway fare schedule." 
Recommended. 

2. File 101-92-18.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Municipal Court, in the amount of $60,000, for professional services (Pretrial 
Services Resource Center, contractor). (Municipal Court) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Release of $45,000 recommended. Filed. 

3. File 101-92-33 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $2,132,044, Fire 
Department, for various capital improvement projects. RO #92135 (Controller) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amended on page 1 lines 1 (in title) 8 and 13 by replacing 
"$2,132,044" with "$1,191,769"; on line 2 after "1992-93" by adding "; 
placing $623,350 on reserve."; further amended on line 10 by replacing 
"$1,000,000" with "$707,000"; on line 12 by replacing "$1,082,444" with 
"$435,169"; and on line 14 by adding "Section 2. Funds in the amount of 
$623,350 (including $573,750 for emergency generators contract and 
$49,600 for geotechnical study contract) are hereby placed on reserve 
pending selection of the contractors, and determination of the cost 
details and the MBE/WBE status of the contractors, to be released by the 
Budget Committee." 

New Title : "Appropriating $1,191,769 Fire Department, for various 
capital improvement projects for fiscal year 1992-93." 
Recommended as amended. 



4. File 101-92-34 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $1,500,000, 
Department of Public Works, for capital improvement project (Bayside Treatment 
Disposal Evaluation). RO #92137 (Controller) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amended on page 1 lines 1 (in title), 10 and 12 by replacing 
"$1,500,000" with "$1,274,771" on line 2 after "1992-93" by adding "; 
placing $225,229 on reserve."; further amended on line 13 by adding 
"Section 2. Funds in the amount of $225,229 (including $21,743 for 
contractual services for Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and 
$203,486 for contractual services related to environmental site 
assessments) are hereby placed on reserve pending the selection of the 
contractors, and the MBE/WBE status of the contractors, to be released 
by the Budget Committee." 

New Title : "Appropriating $1,274,771, Department of Public Works, for 
capital improvement project (Bayside Treatment Disposal Evaluation), 
for fiscal year 1992-93; placing $225,229 on reserve." 
Recommended as amended. 

5. File 101-92-35 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $9,791,241, County 
Education Office - SFUSD, for capital improvement project (School Facilities 
Improvement). RO #92154 (Controller) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

6. File 101-92-40 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $630,220, Airports 
Commission, for permanent salaries and related mandatory fringe benefits, for the 
creation of twenty-seven positions; companion measure to File 102-92-12. RO 
#92167 (Controller) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amended on page 1 lines 1, (in title) 9, and 15 by replacing 
"$630,220" with "$349,926"; on lines 2 and 16 by replacing "twenty seven 
(27)" with "twenty three (23)"; on line 11 by replacing "$519,844" with 
"$288,718"; on line 13 by replacing "$110,376" with "$61,208"; and further 
amended by deleting lines 22-25 and on page 2 by deleting lines 6-7; and 
on line 8 by replacing "27" with "23". 

New Title : "Appropriating $349,926, Airports Commission, for 
permanent salaries and related mandatory fringe benefits, for the 
creation of twenty-three (23) positions." 
Recommended as amended. 



File 102-92-12 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 
1992-93, Airports Commission, reflecting the addition of twenty-seven positions 
(Classifications AA45 Telecommunications Coordinator (1), 1426 Senior Clerk Typist 
(1), 1446 Secretary II (1), 9202 Communications Dispatcher (8), 9203 Sr. 
Communications Dispatcher (2), 9209 Police Service Aide (13), 4318 Electronic 
Technician (1) (Civil Service Commission) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amended on page 1 line 2 (in title) by replacing 

"twenty-seven" with "twenty three"; and further amended by deleting 
lines 14-16 and 21. 

New Title: "Amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 1992-93, Airports 
Commission, reflecting the addition of twenty-three positions - 
Classifications 9202 Communications Dispatcher (8), 9203 Sr. 
Communications Dispatcher (2), 9209 Police Service Aide (13)." 
Recommended as amended. 



8. File 100-93-2 . Hearing to consider Joint Report by Mayor, Controller, and Budget 
Analyst regarding the 1993-94 fiscal budget year projected revenues and 
expenditures. (Supervisor Migden) 

(Continued from 2/10/93) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to February 24, 1993 meeting. 

9. File 100-93-3 . [Budget] Motion authorizing and directing the Clerk of the Board of 
to file with the Controller the budget estimates for Fiscal Year 1993-94 for the 
Department of the Board of Supervisors. (Clerk, of the Board) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 



City Report 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



February 12, 1993 



TO: Budget Committee 

FROM; Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: February 17, 1993 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 1 -File 7-93-3 

Department: Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Item: Resolution approving a revised fare schedule for the San 

Francisco Municipal Railway (pertaining to Section III, 
Special Events Service, and Section V, Regional Transfer 
arrangements). 

Description: The proposed resolution would approve changes to the 

Municipal Railway (MUNI) Fare Schedule pertaining to 
special events and regional transfer arrangements. The 
proposed changes include: 

a) The round trip adult cash fare to special events would 
increase by $1 from $4 to $5. Special events include SF 49er 
football and Giants baseball games at Candlestick Park, the 
Bay to Breakers race, special music concerts, etc. 

b) The transit pass share of the cost of the Bay Area Rapid 
Transit (BART) Plus Pass sold for a half-month period, 
beginning on the 1st or 16th of the month, would increase by 
$4 from $10 to $14. The BART Plus Pass currently provides 
for unlimited use of MUNI and other Bay Area transit 
systems and limited use of BART depending on the total 
cost of the pass purchased. Currently the cost of the BART 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 

Plus Pass ranges from $24 to $57 of which $10 is used as a 
transit pass for unlimited rides on MUNI and other Bay 
Area transit systems. The total purchase price of the BART 
Plus Pass is proposed to increase by $4 and would then 
range from $28 to $61 of which $14 would be the price for the 
transit pass. 

For example a BART Plus Pass purchased for $28 would 
provide the buyer with a) $15 worth of BART fares at an 
actual cost of $14 based on a 6.25 percent discount provided 
by BART and b) unlimited rides on MUNI and other Bay 
Area transit systems at a cost of $14 during the two week 
period identified on the BART Plus Pass. The BART Plus 
Passes are sold at designated commercial outlets in areas 
served by transit operators participating in the BART Plus 
Pass Program. 

c) The monthly transfer sticker for transfers from three 
other neighboring transit systems to MUNI would increase 
by $4 from $24 to $28. The monthly transfer sticker enables 
passengers of Golden Gate Transit, AC Transit and 
SamTrans unlimited access to MUNI during the 
designated month. The monthly transfer sticker must be 
affixed to either a 20 ride Golden Gate Transit Discount 
Ticket Book, a monthly AC Transit Transbay Pass or a 
monthly SamTrans Pass. 

d) The cost of a MUNI cash transfer from BART, good for a 
round trip on MUNI to and from BART (to be purchased at 
BART stations in San Francisco) has been clarified to be 
"the price of a single trip adult fare" on MUNI. This would 
correct the current stated cost from $0.85 to $1.00, the 
present cost of a single trip cash fare on MUNI. The need 
for this change was inadvertently overlooked when other 
fare schedule revisions were approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in July, 1992 (File 7-92-3.1). 

The proposed fare rate increases would become effective on 
March 1, 1993. 

Comments: 1. In a letter dated January 28, 1993, Mr. Thomas Elzey of 

the PUC advised the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors that 
increasing the cost of a round trip adult fare for the Special 
Events Service by $1 from $4 to $5 is expected to yield an 
estimated $100,000 annually. However, based on a review of 
current revenues and discussions with PUC Finance 
personnel, the Budget Analyst concludes that the proposed 
fare increase is expected to yield an estimated $50,000 
annually, and not $100,000 annually. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



2. According to Mr. Elzey, this $1 fare increase for special 
events service has been proposed by MUNI and PUC 
primarily to reduce the time needed to board passengers by 
encouraging such passengers to use one $5 bill rather than 
four $1 bills. Each individual bill, whether a $1 or a $5 bill 
must be fed separately into the MUNI fare box. Thus, 
inserting a single $5 bill instead of four $1 bills would take 
an estimated 80 percent less time. 

3. Ms. Kathleen Kelly of the PUC advises that the State 
requires adjoining transit agencies to implement and 
maintain transfer agreements that permit transit riders 
ready access between transit districts. If transfer 
agreements are not implemented and maintained, the State 
could withhold transportation funding allocated to transit 
agencies such as MUNI. Therefore, MUNI is participating 
in a mutually agreed upon decision among Bay Area 
transit operators to increase the cost of regional transfer 
passes and stickers. 

4. Ms. Kelly also advises that the proposed $4 increase in 
the BART Plus Pass is expected to be mutually agreed to by 
all of the Bay Area transit operators, including AC Transit, 
SamTrans, BART Express (east Contra Cost County shuttle 
feeder buses to BART), The County Connection (east Contra 
Costa County), Dumbarton Express, Martinez Link, Santa 
Clara County Transit Local Service and Union City Transit 
that have agreements with BART to participate in the 
BART Plus Pass program. According to Ms. Kelly, based 
on a survey completed by BART personnel of BART Plus 
passengers, a total of 39 percent of the BART Plus Pass 
ridership has currently been attributed to MUNI. 
Therefore, MUNI would receive 39 percent of the proposed 
$4 fare increase, or $1.56, which PUC Finance has 
estimated would increase revenues to the MUNI by $187,200 
annually. Based on a review of current revenues from the 
BART Plus Pass program, the Budget Analyst concurs with 
this revenue estimate. 

5. Ms. Kelly also advises that the $4 increase to the MUNI 
transfer sticker program would increase MUNI revenues 
by $76,900 annually (Golden Gate Transit - $4,806, AC 
Transit - $48,063 and SamTrans - $24,031). The Budget 
Analyst concurs with this revenue estimate. 



BOARD OF SI IPERVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 

Ttem 2 -File 101-92-18.1 

Department: Municipal Court 

Item: Release of reserved funds for professional services 

Amount: $60,000 

Source of Funds: General Fund - General Reserve 



Description: 



In December, 1992 the Board of Supervisors approved an 
ordinance (File 102-92-8) to amend the 1992-93 Annual Salary 
Ordinance to create a new limited term 0215 Bail 
Commissioner position for the Municipal Court. The Bail 
Commissioner is for a six-month pilot project to determine 
what effect such a Bail Commissioner position would have on 
reducing jail overcrowding. The companion legislation, a 
supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92-18) 
provided funding for the new position and also provided 
$60,000 for the Municipal Court's Professional Services budget 
in order to retain a criminal justice consulting firm that has 
expertise in evaluating pretrial alternatives to jail sentences. 
The $60,000 was reserved pending selection of the consultant, 
determination of contract cost details, hourly rates, MBE/WBE 
status of the consultant and the status of a pending $20,000 
National Institute of Corrections (NIC) grant that was 
intended to partially reduce the $60,000 expenditure from the 
General Fund for a consultant. 

The Municipal Court Judges' A<imini strati on Committee has 
selected the Washington, D.C. firm, Pretrial Services Resource 
Center on a sole source basis to evaluate the effectiveness of 
the Bail Commissioner pilot project and pretrial alternatives to 
jail sentences in reducing jail overcrowding. The hours, hourly 
rates and budget for the Pretrial Services Resource Center 
consulting contract are as follows: 



Personnel 

Position 
Director 
Deputy Director 
Staff Associate 
Secretary 

Subtotal-Salaries 
Fringe Benefits (28.89 % of salaries) 

Total - Personnel 



Hourly 


No. of 




Rate 


Hours 


Amount 


$35.47 


192 


$6,810 


32.00 


128 


4,096 


25.50 


160 


4,080 


13.16 
) 


80 


1.053 

$16,039 
4.634 



$20,673 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 

Operating Expenses 

Travel (8 trips at $1,526 per trip) $12,208 

Rent 4,837 

Supplies 435 

Audit 2.605 

Total - Operating Expenses $20,085 

Administrative Overhead (36 % of Personnel) $7.442 

Total Consulting Contract $48,200 

Comments: 1. As noted in the budget for the consultant above, only 

$48,200 rather than $60,000 is required for the consulting 
contract. However, the Budget Analyst notes that when the 
Municipal Court requested the $60,000 supplemental 
appropriation from the General Fund for the consulting 
contract, the Municipal Court indicated that the NIC grant, 
which was approved in the amount of $15,000, would be used 
to partially offset the cost of the consultant. Therefore, the 
$15,000 NIC grant should be used to offset the $48,200 
consulting contract. The net effect would be to release only 
$33,200 ($48,200 total contract less offset of $15,000) of 
reserved funds for the consulting contract. 

2. According to Mr. Gordon Park-Li, Clerk/Administrator for 
the Municipal Court, the Washington, D.C. firm, Pretrial 
Services Resource Center was selected on a sole source basis by 
the Municipal Court Judges based on a recommendation from 
a previous consultant used by the Municipal Court and 
because Pretrial Services Resource Center is a nationally 
recognized firm for analyzing pretrial services. Pretrial 
Services Resource Center is not a MBE or a WBE firm. 

3. Although the $60,000 that is the subject of this request was 
specifically appropriated from the General Fund for consulting 
services, the Municipal Court requests that in addition to the 
$48,200 release of reserve for the consulting contract, the 
Board of Supervisors release an additional $11,800 for 
additional expenses associated with the Pilot Bail 
Commissioner Project. When added to the consulting contract 
cost of $48,200, the additional $11,800 would bring the total 
request for release of reserve to $60,000. The Municipal Court's 
explanation of these additional costs is attached. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 

Recommendations: 1. Release reserved funds in the net amount of $33,200 for the 
consulting contract ($48,200 total consulting contract less the 
$15,000 National Institute of Corrections (NIC) grant, as 
detailed in Comment No. 1). Continue to reserve $26,800 
($60,000 total reserved funds less recommended release of 
$33,200). 

2. The Budget Analyst considers the additional $11,800, being 
requested by the Municipal Court for release, to be a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors since those funds were 
specifically reserved and appropriated from the General Fund 
for a consulting contract, but are now being requested for other 
expenses associated with the Municipal Court's Pilot Bail 
Commissioner Project, as described in Comment No. 3 and in 
the attachment submitted by the Municipal Court. 

3. If the Budget Committee releases the additional $11,800, 
now being requested by the Municipal Court, $15,000 should 
still continue to be reserved ($60,000 original request less 
$48,200 cost for consulting contract less $11,800 additional 
request of Municipal Court less $15,000 grant funds approved 
by the National Institute of Corrections). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 



The $60,000 approved and placed on reserve by the Board of 
Supervisors, was requested by the Court to develop and assess the 
Court's Pilot Bail Commissioner Project. The pilot project is 
but one of several measures the Court is taking in an effort to 
help alleviate the City's jail overcrowding problem. 

Based on the recommendations of all the consultants employed by 
the Court through grants funded by the National Institute of 
Corrections and the Court's Technical Assistant Project, the 
Directors of those funding sources; the Special Master for the 
City's jail overcrowding case; other knowledgeable sources; and 
in the interest of expediency; the Administrative Committee of 
the Municipal Court selected the Pretrial Services Resource 
Center as its consultant to assess the impact of the Court's 
Pilot Bail Commissioner Project. In addition to assessing the 
pilot project, the consultant will develop a proposed job 
description for a permanent bail commissioner, develop proposed 
guidelines for delegated release, review current practices of the 
OR Project, and assess other services or programs that might be 
appropriate to supervise pretrial releasees. These services 
would be provided within the $48,200 contract with the Pretrial 
Services Resource Center. 

In addition to the assessment, the Court anticipates additional 
expenses associated with its Pilot Bail Commissioner Project. 
These estimated costs include: 

$5,800 for training and site visits for judicial and management 
staff including travel, lodging, per diem, etc. 

$3,000 for costs associated with the selection process for the 
eventual permanent full-time Bail Commissioner. 

$3,000 to develop and implement a database tracking system to 
track individuals released on OR and/ or to third parties. 

In conclusion, the Court is requesting release of $45,000 
($60,000 less the NIC grant of $15,000). 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 

Item 3 - File 101-92-33 

Department: Fire Department 

Item: 



Amount: 



Supplemental appropriation ordinance to appropriate interest 
earned on bond proceeds to various capital improvement 
projects. 

$2,132,044 



Source of Funds: Interest earned on balances of 1986 Fire Protection System 
Improvement Bonds proceeds between the time that the bonds 
were sold and the time that the bond proceeds were expended. 

Description: In November of 1986, San Francisco voters approved the 

issuance of $46.2 million in Fire Protection System 
Improvement Bonds (Proposition A) to finance improvements 
to the City's Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS). The 
AWSS is a system of reservoirs, pipelines, and pump stations 
which will provide a source of water for fire protection in the 
event that the main water supply system fails, as it did 
following the 1906 earthquake. 

The City sold $31 million of these bonds in 1987 and the $15.2 
million balance ($46.2 less $31 million) of the bonds in 1991. 
However, although the bonds were sold and the proceeds were 
appropriated, the proceeds were not immediately expended. 
The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
appropriate the accumulated interest that has been earned on 
the bond proceeds between the time that the bonds were sold 
and the time that the proceeds were actually expended. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
appropriate $2,132,044 of interest earned for capital 
improvement projects associated with the AWSS, as follows: 



Emergency Generators 

Electrical generators would be purchased 
and installed at 20 Fire Stations. The 
estimated cost per electrical generator is 
$50,000. In an emergency, when regular 
electricity service fails, these emergency 
generators would provide the electricity for 
operating the Fire Stations, which become 
a congregating place for neighborhood 
residents, as well as keeping the emergency 
communications equipment operational. 



$1,000,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



The 20 Fire Stations are as follows: 



Fire Station 

Station 20 

Station 22 

Station 23 

Station 24 

Station 25 

Station 26 

Station 28 

Station 29 

Station 32 

Station 33 

Station 34 

Station 37 

Station 39 

Station 41 

Station 42 

Station 43 

Station 44 

Arson Task Force 

Bureau of Equipment 

Station 49 - Fireboat 



Address 

285 Olympia Way 

1290 - 16th Avenue 

1348 - 45th Avenue 

100 Hoffman Street 

3305 - 3rd Street 

80 Digby Street 

1814 Stockton Street 

299 Vermont Street 

194 Park Street 

8 Capitol Avenue 

499 - 41st Avenue 

798 Wisconsin Street 

1091 Portola Boulevard 

1325 Leavenworth Street 

2430 San Bruno Avenue 

720 Moscow Street 

1298 Girard Street 

676 Howard Street 

2501 - 25th Street 

Pier 22-1/2 (foot of Harrison St.) 



Geotechnical Study 

The City's two fireboats, the Phoenix and 
the Guardian, are berthed at the Port at 
Pier 22 1/2, also known as Fire Station 49. 
In order to seismically strengthen Fire 
Station 49 to withstand earthquakes, a 
geotechnical study is needed to determine 
the special requirements for strengthening 
both a building and the pier that is the 
foundation for the building. 



49,600 



Cisterns 

Seven new cisterns are to be constructed in 
the Richmond, Sunset and Marina 
Districts. The estimated total costs for the 
seven new cisterns is $3,214,573. However, 
only $2,132,129 remains of the bond 
proceeds that were specifically 
appropriated for cistern construction. 
Therefore, the Fire Department proposes to 
appropriate the needed balance of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



1, 082,444 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 

$1,082,444 balance of the project cost 
($3,214,573 estimated total cost less 
$2,132,129 already funded) from interest 
earned on the bonds. 

Total $2,132,044 

Comments: 1. Mr. Bob Jew of the Department of Public Works, Bureau of 

Engineering advises that the revised estimate of the cost of the 
proposed emergency generators to be purchased and installed 
at 20 Fire Stations is $707,000. Therefore, the proposed 
supplemental appropriation for the 20 emergency generators 
should be reduced by $293,000 from $1,000,000 to $707,000, as 
follows: 

Design $133,250 

Construction Management 133,250 

Construction Contract 855,000 

Const. Contract Contingency (10%) 85.500 

Total Cost $1,207,000 

Less State of California Funding 500.000 

Net Cost $ 707,000 

Mr. Jew reports that the construction contractor has not been 
selected. Therefore, the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance should be amended to reserve a total of $573,750 
including $133,250 for Construction Management, $855,000 for 
the Construction Contract, $85,500 for the Contingency less 
the $500,000 from the State, pending selection of the 
contractor, the MBE/WBE status of the contractor and the 
contractor's cost details. Mr. Jew concurs with this proposed 
reserve of funds. 

4. The $49,600 proposed supplemental appropriation for the 
geotechnical study should be reserved until the consultant is 
selected to perform the study and information on cost details 
(including hourly rates) and MBE/WBE status are provided. 

5. Mr. Jew also advises that the revised estimate of the cost 
for the seven new cisterns is as follows: 

Construction Management $309,800 

Archaeological Monitoring 62,853 

Construction Contract 1,992,405 

Const. Contract Contingency (10%) 199.240 

Total Cost $2,564,298 

BOARD OF SUPE RVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 

Less previously appropriated bond 

funding for this project $ 2.129.129 

Net Cost $435,169 

Therefore, the proposed supplemental appropriation should 
be further amended to reduce the appropriation for Cistern 
construction by $647,275 from $1,082,444 to $435,169. 

5. The following six bids were received on February 3, 1993 for 
the construction of the seven cisterns: 

Homer J. Olsen, Inc. $1,985,750 

Stacy & Witbeck/John Jenkins 

Construction(MBE and a joint 

venture) 1,992,405 

Dan Caputo Company 2,077,640 

A. Ruiz Construction & Assoc, Inc. 

(MBE and a joint venture) 2,162,320 

D'Arcy & Harty/San Luis Construction 

(MBE and a joint venture) 2,374,110 

Nationwide/Shimmick (MBE and a 

joint venture) 2,610,225 

The joint venture of Stacy & Witbeck and John Jenkins 
Construction was selected as the low bidder after inclusion of 
credit for MBE and joint venture status. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance 
to reduce the requested amount by a total of $940,275 
(including a reduction for the emergency generators of 
$293,000 and a reduction for the cisterns of $647,275) from the 
requested $2,132,044 to $1,191,769. 

2. Further amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance to reserve a total of $623,350 including $573,750 for 
the emergency generators contract and $49,600 for the 
geotechnical study contract pending selection of the 
contractors, and determination of the cost details and the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractors. 

3. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance 
as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 

Item 4 - File 101-92-34 

Department: Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Bureau of Engineering (BOE) 

Item: Supplemental appropriation ordinance for capital 

improvement project (Bayside Treatment Disposal Evaluation) 

Amount: $1,500,000 

Source of Funds: 1988 Sewer Revenue Bonds 

Description: In the early 1970s, the City and County of San Francisco 

developed a long-range master plan to construct facilities for 
control of combined sewer overflows from the City sewerage 
system in response to Federal and State law. This plan, 
known as the Wastewater Master Plan, was approved in 
concept by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1975. 

The Bayside Facilities are an interdependent system of 
transport, storage, pumping and treatment elements designed 
to reduce the episodes of sewer overflows. A majority of these 
facilities have been planned, designed and constructed. The 
Attachment shows the various elements of the Bayside 
Facilities and their status. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
provide funds for a planning project to complete various 
studies, and prepare appropriate documents in accordance 
with Federal and State guidelines to determine the best 
options and/or combinations for treatment, disposal and reuse 
of Bayside dry and wet weather wastewater. These issues 
involve the following: 

1. The Regional Water Quality Control Board's Revised Basin 
Plan for the Bay Area includes new and more stringent 
requirements for discharge of sewage overflow into the Bay 
and Ocean; 

2. The discharge of treated effluent to Islais Creek during the 
wet weather does not comply with the Basin Plan; 

3. The drought has caused the City to consider reusing rather 
than discharging wastewater. 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a supplemental 
appropriation ordinance (Ordinance No. 365-91) appropriating 
$750,000 to fund these same planning activities. However, the 
DPW reports that the amount of these funds was insufficient, 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



and that an additional $1,500,000 is needed to cover previous 
unfunded activities and to expand the workscope of the project. 
Specifically, the DPW reports that the proposed funds would 
be used for DPW staff and contracts as follows: 

Water Quality Studies 

DPW Staff $177,813 

Hydroconsult Engineers Contract 22.187 

Subtotal $200,000 

Impact Study- Monterey Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary 

DPW Staff $123,257 

CH2M Hill Contract 55,000 

Other Contractual Services 21 743 

Subtotal $200,000 

Elimination of Bav Discharg e 

Feasibility Study 

DPW Staff $201,617 

EIR Report Activities 

DPW Staff $123,480 

EIP Associates Contract 90.000 

Subtotal $213,480 

Public Participation Activities 

DPW Staff $1,212 

Parsons Deleuw Contract 68,330 

Business Development Inc. Contract 36.963 

Subtotal $106,505 

Environmental Site Assessments 

DPW Staff $88,154 
Baseline Environmental Consulting Contract 27,218 

Camp Dresser & McKee Contract 29,620 

Harding Lawson Associates Contract 29,920 

Other Contractual Services 203.486 

Subtotal $378,398 

Citv Departmental Work Orders 

City Attorney $50,000 

City Planning 50,000 

Parking and Traffic 75,000 

Real Estate 25.000 

Subtotal Work Orders $200,000 

Total Proposed Supplemental Funds $1,500,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 

Comments: 1. The proposed supplemental funds would be used to fund a 

total of 12,360 hours for existing DPW Staff from the requested 
funds of $1,500,000. The hourly rates and estimated overhead 
for DPW Staff who would be funded are as follows: 



Class Position Hourly Rate 

5506 Project Mgr. Ill $42.26 

5206 Assoc. Civil Eng. 28.71 

5280 Planner III 26.69 

5249 Sr. Sanitary Eng. 38.50 

5258 Sr. Mech. Engineer 38.50 

5248 Sanitary Engineer 33.25 

5247 Assoc. Sanitary Eng. 28.71 

5204 Asst. Civil Engineer 24.20 

6106 Sanitary Eng. Tech. 22.28 

5362 Civil Eng. Asst. 20.23 

7373 Sr. Stationary Eng. 27.08 

5210 Sr. Civil Engineer 38.50 

5208 Civil Engineer 33.25 



Total Rate With 

DPW Overhead 

$72.18 

49.04 

45.59 

65.76 

65.76 

56.79 

49.04 

41.33 

38.05 

34.55 

46.25 

65.76 

56.79 



2. Water Quality Studies — As noted above, $22,187 would be 
provided to Hydroconsult Engineers to perform water quality 
studies for the proposed project. These services would be 
performed under an existing master agreement. Hydroconsult 
Engineers is neither an MBE or WBE firm. The hourly rates, 
including overhead, for Hydroconsult Engineers are as follows: 



Position 

Principal 
Engineer 
Secretary 



Hourly Rate 

$131.25 
80.00 
40.00 



3. Impact Study-Monterev Bay National Marine Sanctuary — 
$55,000 would be provided to CH2M Hill to provide services 
related to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. 
According to Mr. Mike Quan of the DPW's Bureau of 
Engineering, these services would be provided under an 
existing contract, and the amount was negotiated on a not to 
exceed basis. CH2M Hill is neither an MBE or WBE firm. 
$21,743 would be used for additional contractual services 
which have not yet been identified. Therefore, the $21,743 
should be reserved pending finalized cost details. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



15 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



4. EIR Report Activities — $90,000 would be provided to EIP 
Associates to perform Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 
activities. Mr. Quan indicates that the proposed $90,000 in 
supplemental funds would cover the consultant's costs 
associated with printing the draft EIR preparing responses to 
public comments received on the draft EIR, and mailing 
expenses. These services would be provided under EIP 
Associates existing contract with the DPW. EEP Associates is 
neither a City-certified MBE or WBE firm. The proposed 
hourly rates, including overhead, are as follows: 

Position Hourly Rate 

Project Director $128.80 

Project Manager 72.80 

Technicians 56.00 

5. Public Participation Activities — $68,330 would be provided 
to Parsons Deleuw to provide public information services such 
as preparing public notices, handouts, and setting up 
meetings. These services would be provided under an existing 
master agreement with the firm. Parsons Deleuw is neither 
an MBE or WBE firm. The proposed hourly rates, including 
overhead, are as follows: 

Position Hourly Rate 

Public Info.. Officer $45.45 

Asst. Public Info. Officer 30.83 

Coordinator Public Affairs 51.64 

6. Public Participation Activities — $36,963 would be provided 
to Business Development Inc. for public participation services, 
or community liaison activities. These services would be 
provided under an existing master agreement. Business 
Development Inc. is a City-certified MBE firm. The proposed 
hourly rates, including overhead, are as follows: 

Position Hourly Rate 

Project Manager $87.28 

Project Coordinator 48.07 

Secretary 33.19 

7. Environmental Site Assessments — According to Mr. Quan, 
the three consultants contracts for environmental site 
assessment services would perform investigative services and 
prepare reports that would be incorporated into the draft EER. 
Mr. Quan reports that these contracts were negotiated on a not 
to exceed basis. All three firms have existing master 
agreements with the DPW. Baseline Environmental 
Consulting ($27,218) is registered as a WBE firm, but is 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 

located in Emeryville and therefore is not a City-certified firm. 
Camp Dresser & McKee ($29,620) and Harding Lawson 
Associates ($29,920) are neither MBE or WBE firms. Baseline 
Environmental Consulting and Harding Lawson Associates 
have submitted their cost estimates based upon tasks, such as 
sampling, analyses and report writing, and therefore hourly 
rates were not available. Camp Dresser and McKee would 
provide 336 direct labor hours at an average hourly rate of 
approximately $88.16. 

8. Environmental Site Assessments — As noted, $203,486 
would be provided for other contractual services related to the 
environmental site assessment, but these consultants have not 
yet been selected. Therefore, a total of $203,486 should be 
reserved pending the selection of a contractor, the MBE/WBE 
status of the contractor and finalized cost details. 

9. Citv Departmental Work Orders — A total of $200,000 
would be provided for various City departmental work orders. 
The City Attorneys Office would use $50,000 of the proposed 
funds to provide legal opinions. The Department of City 
Planning would provide services costing $50,000 which relate 
to planning issues. The Department of Parking and Traffic 
would assist on the preparation and review of traffic impact 
studies, costing $75,000. The Department of Real Estate would 
provide services costing $25,000 relative to possible required 
land transactions. 

10. The Budget Analyst is currently conducting a 
management audit of the Clean Water Enterprise that 
includes an evaluation of engineering-related professional 
service contracts, competitive vendor selection procedures and 
the use of City staff versus consultants for capital projects. 

Recommendation: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to reserve a total of $225,229 
consisting of the following: 

• $21,743 for other contractual services related to the 
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary pending the 
selection of a contractor, the MBE/WBE status of the 
contractor and finalized cost details; 

• $203,486 for other contractual services related to 
environmental site assessments pending the selection of a 
contractors, the MBE/WBE status of the contractors and 
finalized cost details. 

2. Approve the proposed ordinance as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



-ttLLacnmeriL 



BAYSIDt CSO CONTROL FACILITIES 



NORTH SHORE OUTFALL CONSOLIDATION 




SAN UATtO CO. 



18 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



Item 5 -File 101-92-35 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 

Source of Funds: 

Description: 



San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) 

Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance to appropriate bond 
proceeds. 

$9,791,241 

Proceeds from interest revenue earned from Public School 
Facilities System Improvement Bonds of 1988 (being sold as 
Series 1991A) 

Proceeds from the Public School Facilities System 
Improvement Bonds of 1988 are appropriated by the Board of 
Supervisors because the bonds were originally issued by the 
City and County of San Francisco on behalf of the San 
Francisco Unified School District. 

A total of $90.0 million of Public School Facilities System 
Improvement Bonds were approved by the electorate in June 
1988 and issuance of these bonds was previously authorized by 
the Board of Supervisors (File 318-87-6). In July, 1988, $35.0 
million of these bonds were sold and proceeds were 
appropriated by a supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 
101-88-45). In December, 1990, the Board of Supervisors 
authorized the sale of the remaining $55.0 million (File 170-90- 
14) and in January, 1991, and the proceeds of this second sale 
of bonds were appropriated by a second supplemental 
appropriation ordinance (File 101-90-39). 

The purpose of the Public School Facilities System 
Improvement Bonds of 1988 was to provide various 
improvements (as detailed on the following page) of the 
existing public school facilities of the City and County of San 
Francisco. 

The proposed Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance would 
use proceeds from interest revenue totaling $9,791,241 from 
the investment of bond proceeds between the time that the 
original bonds were sold (July, 1988) to the time that the bond 
funds were actually expended (June, 1992). The requested 
$9,791,241 in interest revenue will be expended for capital 
improvement projects at various SFUSD elementary schools 
(ES), middle schools (MS), high schools (HS) and Children 
Centers (CC), as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



Project Description 


Target 


Estimated 


and Location 


Date 


Proiect Cost 


Asbestos Abatement 




Commodore Stockton (ES) 


Summer 1993 


$33,000 


John Swett (ES) 


Summer 1993 


50,000 


Mirolama (ES) 


Spring 1993 


40,000 


Visitacion Valley (ES) 


Spring, Summer 1993 


31,400 


Aptos (MS) 


Spring 1993 


157,000 


James Denman (MS) 


Spring 1993 


317,900 


James Lick (MS) 


Summer 1993 


167,900 


Balboa & Center for Independent Study (HS) 


Summer 1993 


250,000 


Downtown (HS) 


Spring 1993 


317,900 


Galileo (HS) 


Spring 1993 


75,000 


John O'Connell @ Mark Twain (HS) 


Spring 1993 


31,000 


School of the Arts/Bay 


Summer 1993 


236.000 


Subtotal 




$1,707,100 


Electrical Work - Lighting 






Roosevelt (MS) 


Summer 1993 


$350,000 


Mission (HS) 


Summer 1993 


400.000 


Subtotal 




$750,000 


Heat and Ventilation Upgrade 






Galileo (HS) 


Summer 1993 


$700,000 


School of the Arts/Bay (HS) 


Spring 1993 


350.000 


Subtotal 




$1,050,000 


Roof Replacement 






Laguna Golden Gate (OC) 


Summer 1993 


$21,000 


Monroe (ES) 


Summer 1993 


50,000 


Visitacion Valley (ES) 


Summer 1993 


220,000 


Roosevelt (MS) 


Summer 1993 


413,500 


Abraham Lincoln (HS) 


Winter 1993 


500,000 


Lowell (HS) 


Summer 1993 


247,100 


School of the Arts/Bay (HS) 


Summer 1993 


290.800 


Subtotal 




$1,742,400 


Toilet Rehabilitation/ Plumbing Upgrade 






Golden Gate (ES) 


Summer 1993 


$293,400 


John Muir (ES) 


Summer 1993 


200,100 


Lakeshore (ES) 


Summer 1993 


340,000 


Visitacion Valley (ES) 


Summer 1993 


93,500 


Roosevelt (MS) 


Summer 1993 


283,400 


Abraham Lincoln (HS) 


Summer 1993 


34,100 


Balboa & Center for Individual Study (HS) 


Summer 1993 


400,000 


Galileo (HS) 


Spring 1993 


490.141 


Subtotal 




$2,134,641 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



Project Description 


Target 


Estimated 


and Location 


Date 


Project Cost 


Window Sash Replacement 






Hawthorne (ES) 


Summer 1993 


$288,000 


Longfellow (ES) 


Summer 1993 


198,000 


Starr King (ES) 


Summer 1993 


95,000 


Presidio (MS) 


Spring 1993 


208,000 


Mission (HS) 


Spring 1993 


218.100 


Subtotal 




$1,007,100 


Reconstruction 






Sheridan (ES) 


Winter 1993 


$1,400,000 


Total Capital Improvement Projects 




$9,791,241 



Comments: 1. Mr. Robert Golton of the San Francisco Unified School 

District (SFUSD) advises that the $1,400,000 allocation for 
the reconstruction of the Sheridan Elementary School will be 
matched with an equal amount of grant funds from the State 
of California, Office of General Services. The combined total 
of $2,800,000 would be used to replace approximately 18 
temporary buildings at the Sheridan Elementary School with 
permanent structures. 

2. The SFUSD reports that as of June 30, 1992, a total of 
$9,847,432 has been earned from interest on the subject 
bonds which is $56,191 ($9,847,432 less $9,791,241) greater 
than the amount of the proposed supplemental 
appropriation. Further, during the six-month period, July, 
1992 through December, 1992, an additional $895,641 of 
interest was earned from the 1988 School Improvement Bond 
Fund. Therefore, as of December 1992, the additional 
interest earned totals $951,832 ($895,641 plus $56,191) in 
addition to the $9,791,241 which is the subject of the 
proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance for a total of 
$10,743,073 in interest earnings through December, 1992. 

3. The $951,832 balance of interest reserve, plus interest 
earned on the bond proceeds balance after December, 1992 
would be subject to future appropriation approval of the 
Board of Supervisors prior to the expenditure of such funds. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



Items 6 and 7 - Files 101-92-40 and 102-92-12 



Department 
Items: 



Amount: 



San Francisco International Airport 

Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance (Item 6, File 101-92- 
40) to fund 27 new positions. 

Ordinance (Item 7, File 102-92-12) to amend the FY 1992-93 
Annual Salary Ordinance by adding 27 positions. 

$630,220 



1 


AA45 


1 


1426 


1 


1446 


8 


9202 


2 


9203 


13 


9209 


1 


4318 


27 





Source of Funds: Airport Operating Fund - Unappropriated Revenue 

Description; The proposed ordinance (File 102-92-12) to amend the FY 

1992-93 Annual Salary Ordinance would create 27 new 
permanent positions as follows: 

Maximum 
Biweekly Annual Salary 
No. Classification Salary Range at Top Step 

Telecommunications Coordinator $2,091 $54,575 

Senior Clerk Typist 1,047-1,267 33,069 

Secretary II 1,158-1,401 36,566 

Airport Commun. Dispatcher 1,273-1,543 322,176 

Airport Sr. Commun Dispatcher 1,401-1,698 88,636 

Police Service Aide 1,109-1,342 455,338 

Electronic Maint. Technician 2,043-2,483 64.806 

$1,055,166 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 
101-92-40) would fund the proposed 27 new permanent 
positions for the six-month period from January 1, through 
June 30, 1993, at Step 5, with the exception of the AA45 
Telecommunications Coordinator position, which is a single- 
step classification, and the 4318 Electronic Maintenance 
Technician position, which would be funded at Step 1, as 
follows: 

Telecom Coord (1 x $2,091 x 13.0 bwpp) $27,183 

Sr. Clerk Typist (1 x $1,267 x 13.0 bwpp) 16,471 

Secretary H (lx $1,401 x 13.0 bwpp) 18,213 

Comm. Dispatc. (8 x $1,543 x 13.0 bwpp) 160,472 

Sr. Comm. Disp.(2 x $1,698 x 13.0 bwpp) 44,148 

Police Ser. Aide<13 x $1,342 x 13.0 bwpp) 226,798 

Elec. Main Tech. (1 x $2,043x 13.0 bwpp) 26559 

Subtotal - Permanent Salaries $519,844 

Subtotal - Mandatory Fringe Benefits (21.2 percent) 110.376 

Total - Personnel $630,220 



1 


AA45 


1 


1426 


1 


1446 


8 


9202 


2 


9203 


13 


9209 


1 


4318 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



On December 15, 1992, the Airports Commission approved 
Resolution No. 92-0315 authorizing the Director of Airports to 
request a supplemental appropriation to fund 27 new 
security-related positions in the Airport's Operations 
Division. As stated in Resolution No. 92-0315, the new 
security-related positions are to enhance access control to 
and from the Airport's enplaning areas, in compliance with 
new requirements promulgated in FAA Regulation 107.14, 
dated January 6, 1989. 

FAA Regulation 107.14, titled "Access Control System," 
requires that airports "serving scheduled passenger 
operations conducted in airplanes having a passenger 
seating configuration of more than 60 seats shall submit to 
the Director of Civil Aviation Security, for approval and 
inclusion in its approved security program, an amendment 
to provide for a system, method, or procedure which meets 
the requirements specified in this paragraph for controlling 
access to secured areas of the airport." FAA Regulation 
107.14 further requires that "The system, method, or 
procedure shall ensure that only those persons authorized to 
have access to secured areas by the airport operator's 
security program are able to obtain that access and shall 
specifically provide a means to ensure that such access is 
denied immediately at the access point or points to 
individuals whose authority to have access changes." 
According to Ms. Angela Gittens of the Airport, the objective 
of Regulation 107.14 is to place further restrictions on the 
enplaning areas of the airfield. 

FAA Regulation 107.14 required that each airport, of the size 
category in which San Francisco International Airport is 
included, submit an amendment to its approved security 
program by August 8, 1989, and that the amendment must 
specify that the access system would be operational within 18 
months of the date on which the amendment was approved by 
the Director of Civil Aviation Security. For San Francisco 
International Airport, the date on which the required 
approved access procedures would have been effective was by 
early 1991, as determined by the length of the FAA's approval 
process. However, according to Ms. Gittens, the Airport's 
originally required dates for implementation of the security 
access procedures were extended by the FAA to December of 
1992. 

Ms. Gittens reports that the Airport has implemented its 
approved security access procedures and that those 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



procedures consist of the following: (1) adding two airfield 
security checkpoints, which was implemented in December 
of 1992, and (2) closely monitoring the 159 doors in the three 
Airport terminal buildings that exit into restricted areas, 
which was implemented in August of 1992. 

Ms. Gittens reports that the Airport has installed a new 
electronic access control system with surveillance cameras 
and three monitor stations for monitoring the 159 doors at all 
times. The Airport is requesting eight additional Airport 
Communications Dispatcher positions and two additional 
Senior Airport Communications Dispatcher positions to 
perform the monitoring function. The Airport is currently 
authorized a total of 30 Communication Dispatcher positions 
and eight Senior Airport Communications Dispatcher 
positions (See Comment No. 3). 

Ms. Gittens reports that each of the two airfield security 
checkpoints, which control access to the airfield operations 
area, are required to be staffed by two Police Service Aides at 
all times. The Airport is requesting a total of 13 additional 
Police Service Aide positions to staff the two airfield security 
checkpoints in order to provide the required staffing. The 
Airport is currently authorized a total of 80 Police Service 
Aide positions (See Comment No. 3). 

The Airport has provided the Budget Analyst with the 
following justification for the seven position classifications, 
totalling 27 new positions, as follows: 

AA45 Telecommunications Qoorffi n ^ftor: (1 New Position) 

This position would be responsible for managing the 
development of the Strategic Telecommunications Plan for 
the Airport. Specific duties of the proposed position include 
defining telecommunications equipment and services needs, 
such as voice processing, voice and data switching, 
computerized paging; identifying and developing 
telecommunications strategies to reduce and stabilize costs 
and improve the quality and reliability of services; and 
evaluating telecommunications equipment and services for 
possible use by the Airport. 

1446 Secretary II; (1 New Position) 

This position would provide additional secretarial assistance 
needed due to the additional responsibilities required of the 
Landside Operations Office, which includes the subject 
Security Access Program required by FAA Regulation 107.14; 
the implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



1990; and San Mateo County's Transportation Systems 
Management/Congestion Reduction Program. 

1426 Senior Clerk Typist: (1 New Position) 
This position would work under the supervision of the 
Secretary II to prepare a variety of operating, financial, 
purchasing, and accounting records and reports. The 
position would have responsibility for conducting established 
office operations; interfacing with other departmental 
personnel; and preparing and reviewing office records and 
reports. 

4318 Electronic Maintenance Technician; (1 New Position) 
This position would provide maintenance on electronic 
equipment at the Airport. The Airport has over 2,000 pieces of 
electronic equipment that are near the end of the warranty 
period, in addition to recently installing approximately 175 
video cameras and miles of wire and fiber optic cable. The 
requested position is required to maintain this equipment to 
FAA standards, and is the first of two to three additional 
electronic maintenance technician positions that Airport 
management intends to request in the next two or three 
years. 

9202 Airport. Communications Dispatcher: (8 New Positions) 
These positions would be responsible for monitoring 
surveillance screens that have been installed to provide 
security coverage for 159 access doors that require additional 
coverage as a result of FAA Regulation 107.14. Eight 
additional Airport Communications Dispatcher positions are 
needed to quickly, efficiently, and safely handle all alarm 
activations. 

9203 Senior Airport Communi cations Dispatcher: (2 New 
Positions) 

These positions are required to augment the responsibility for 
supervising the 9202 Airport Communications Dispatchers, 
given the need for the additional Airport Communications 
Dispatcher positions. The Senior Airport Communications 
Dispatchers are accountable for the operation of the 
Communications Center during each work shift. The Senior 
Airport Communications Dispatchers also provide all 
training for the Airport Communications Dispatchers (9- 
month initial and on-going, recurrent training). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



9209 Airport Police Services Aide ; (13 New Positions) 

These positions are required to provide security guard and 
parking enforcement services. Specifically, the requested 
positions would staff two checkpoints to control access within 
the Airport Operations Area in order to prevent unauthorized 
access to the enplaning areas. 



Comments: 1. Item 7, File 102-92-12, refers to the requested Electronic 

Maintenance Technician position as Civil Service 
Classification Number 4318. The actual Civil Service 
Classification Number for the Electronic Maintenance 
Technician position is 7318. The proposed ordinance should 
be amended to recognize the correct classification number. 

2. The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance 
should be reduced by $208,457 from $630,220 to $421,763 to 
reflect that the starting date for these new positions would be 
March 2, 1993, and not January 1, 1993 as has been 
requested. The required funding for the period March 2, 1993, 
through June 30, 1993, (8.7 biweekly pay periods), is as 
follows: 

Permanent Salaries- 

1 AA45 Telecom Coord. (1 x $2,091 x 8.7 bwpp) $18,192 

1 1426 Sr. Clerk Typist (1 x $1,267 x 8.7 bwpp) 11,023 

1 1446 Secretary H (lx $1,401x8.7 bwpp) 12,189 
8 9202 Comm. Dispatc (8 x $1,543 x 8.7 bwpp) 107,393 

2 9203 Sr. Comm. Disp.(2 x $1,698 x 8.7 bwpp) 29,545 
13 9209 Police Ser. Aide(13 x $1,342 x 8.7 bwpp) 151,780 

1 4318 Electronic Tech. (lx $2,043x8.7 bwpp) 17.774 

Subtotal - Permanent Salaries $347,896 

Subtotal - Mandatory Fringe Benefits (21.2 percent) 73.867 

Total - Personnel $421,763 

3. The following table shows the number of positions in the 
affected position classifications authorized in the Airport's 
budgets for the fiscal years indicated: 



BOARD OF SI JPKUVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 















9209 


7318 








1426 


1446 


9202 




9203 


Police 


Elect. 


AA45 




Fiscal 


Sr. Clk. 


Sec. 


Comm. 


Sr. 


Comm. 


Svc. 


Maint 


Tele. 




Year 


Typist 


i! 


Dispatch. 


D 


ispatch. 


Aide 


Tech 


Coord. 


Total 


91-92 


8 


22 


30 




8 


80 


4 





152 


92-93 


8 


20 


30 




8 


80 


5 





151 


Propose 


id 


















Totals 


9 


21 


38 




10 


93 


6 


1 


ITS 



4. Ms. Gittens reports that the Airport has actually filled the 
Airport Police Services Aide, Airport Communications 
Dispatcher, and Senior Airport Communications Dispatcher 
positions using Temporarily Exchanged (TX'd) Airport Police 
Officer positions. According to Ms. Gittens, the positions for 
the Telecommunications Coordinator, Senior Clerk Typist, 
Secretary II, and the Electronic Maintenance Technician 
have not been filled. 

5. Based on the requirement to staff two security access 
checkpoints with two employees each on a 24-hour per day 
basis and using customary assumptions for sick pay, annual 
leave, training, etc., the Budget Analyst has calculated that a 
total of 21.5 Airport Police Services Aide positions would be 
required. The Airport is requesting an additional 13 Airport 
Police Services Aide positions. 

6. Based on the requirement to staff three surveillance 
monitoring positions on a 24-hour per day basis and using 
customary assumptions for sick pay, annual leave, training, 
etc., the Budget Analyst has calculated that a total of 16.1 
Airport Communications Dispatcher positions would be 
required. The Airport is requesting an additional eight 
Airport Communications Dispatcher positions. 

7. Staffing for the administrative, maintenance, and 
telecommunications planning positions whose proposed 
duties extend beyond the strict requirements of the new FAA 
regulations is more a matter of judgment. The Budget 
Analyst recommends that consideration of the request for 
adding the following four positions to the Airport's budget be 
deferred until the FY 1993-94 budget period, when the request 
can be analyzed in the context of the Airport's complete 
budget request: 






BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



AA45 Telecommunications Coordinator 

1426 Senior Clerk Typist 

1446 Secretary II 

4318 Electronic Maintenance Technician 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance (File 102-92-12) to change 
the classification number for the Electronic Maintenance 
Technician position from 4318 to 7318. 

2. In accordance with Comment No. 7 above, amend the 
proposed amendment to the Annual Salary Ordinance (File 
102-92-12) to delete the following four proposed new positions: 



AA45 Telecommun. Coordinator 

1426 Senior Clerk Typist 

1446 Secretary II 

4318 Electronic Maintenance Tech. 

3. Reduce the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance (File 101-92-40) by $107,172 from $630,220 to $523,048 
to reflect the proposed deletion of four requested positions. 

4. Further reduce the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance (File 101-92-40) by $173,122 from $523,048 to $349,926 
to reflect that funds are needed for the remaining 23 proposed 
positions for 8.7 pay periods rather than for 13.0 pay periods. 

5. Approve the proposed ordinances as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



Item 8 - File 100-93-2 

Note: This item was continued at the February 10, 1993 Budget Committee 
meeting. 

1. This item is a hearing is to consider the Controller's report of February 4, 
1993 pertaining to the projected financial condition of the City and County which 
shows a projected deficit of $5.5 million for Fiscal Year 1992-93 if no action is taken 
to correct the situation. 

2. The Budget Committee continued this item and requested that the 
Mayor's Office present to the Committee the fiscal plan to resolve the projected 
deficit of $5.5 million and to report on the status of the pending supplemental 
appropriation requests and the priority of such requests which are presently being 
held by the Controller. The Committee also requested the Controller to report on 
his recommendation as to the advisable level of the City's General Fund Reserve, 
given the projected deficit of $5.5 million and the pending supplemental 
appropriation requests. 

3. Mr. Ed Harrington, City Controller, states that the City's General Fund 
Reserve should contain a minimum balance of $3 million for the remainder of 
Fiscal Year 1992-93 and that a greater amount would allow the City to respond to 
additional fiscal issues that may arise. As previously reported, the Controller, the 
Mayor's Budget Directors and the Budget Analyst have recommended that a $10 
million General Fund Reserve be established in the City's budget for Fiscal Year 
1993-94. 

4. Ms. Teresa Serata of the Mayor's Office states that the Mayor's Office is 
currently analyzing the City's current fiscal situation. As of the writing of this 
report, a plan to resolve the $5.5 projected deficit for Fiscal Year 1992-93 has not 
been finalized by the Mayor's Office. 



BOARD OF SI IPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 17, 1993 



Ttem 9 - File 100-93-3 



This item is a motion authorizing and directing the Clerk of the Board of 
Supervisors to file with the Controller the budget estimates for Fiscal Year 1993-94 
for the Department of the Board of Supervisors. A copy of this proposed budget is 
contained in the Board's file. 



Comment 

Upon analysis and approval by the Mayor, the estimated departmental 
budget for Fiscal Year 1993-94 for the Department of the Board of Supervisors, 
along with the estimated departmental budgets for all other City Departments, 
will be incorporated into the Mayor's proposed 1993-94 budget which will be 
submitted to the Budget Committee for analysis and final approval of the Board of 
Supervisors. The Budget Analyst will report to the Budget Committee his 
findings and recommendations on the Board's budget together with all of the 
other City departmental budgets during the Budget Committee's annual review of 
the 1993-94 Mayor's recommended budget for the City and County. 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Shelley 
President Alioto 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Bierman 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serrata 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



CALENDAR * c+ ... - D °CUMENTS DEPT 



I -3 CALENDAR ft e 

AUG 2 7 1996 

BUDOTT COMMHTEE SJ" ^C.sco 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LIBRAR < 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1993*- 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS MIGDEN, HSIEH, SHELLEY 

CLERK: KAY GULBENGAY 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

1. File 79-92-3.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Mayor's 
Office of Community Development, in the amount of $86,359, public service funding 
for the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families. (Mayor's Office of 
Community Development) 

(Continued from 2/10/93 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to call of the chair. 

2. File 101-92-36 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $100,000, Mayor's 
Office - OCD, for permanent salaries and related mandatory fringe benefits, other 
services and equipment purchase, for the creation of two positions; companion 
measure to File 102-92-15. RO #92155 

(Controller) 

(Continued from 2/10/93) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Tabled. 

3. File 102-92-15 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 
1992-93, Mayor's Office, reflecting the addition of two positions (Classification 9736 
Staff Assistant II, Special Project) 

(Civil Service Commission) 

(Continued from 2/10/93) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Tabled. 

4. File 101-92-37 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $170,474,898, 
Airports Commission, for various capital improvement projects. RO #92148 
(Controller) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 



5. File 101-92-38 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $25,000,000, 
Airports Commission, for various capital improvement projects (Advance - Future 
Annual Service Payment) and rescinding $25,000,000 from capital improvement 
project (Groundside Improvements). RO #92165 (Controller) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

6. File 101-92-39 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $27,373,875, 
Airports Commission, for various capital improvement projects. RO #92166 
(Controller) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

7. File 101-92-41 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $320,545, District 
Attorney - Family Support Bureau, for permanent salaries-miscellaneous and related 
mandatory fringe benefits, telephone and services of other departments-City Mail 
Services. RO #92146 (Controller) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

8. File 27-93-1 . [Airport-Rates and Charges] Resolution making a finding that the 
revised schedule of rates and charges for outdoor aircraft storage established by the 
Airports Commission will be sufficient to pay for maintenance and operation 
expenses of the Airport and will not require any tax subsidy; companion measure to 
File 27-93-1.1. (Airports Commission) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

9. File 27-93-1.1 [Airport-Rates and Charges] Resolution approving changes to the 
schedule of rates and charges for common use facilities at San Francisco 
International Airport as established by Airports Commission; companion measure to 
File 27-93-1. (Airports Commission) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

10. File 128-93-1 . [Hold Harmless Provision] Resolution approving a hold harmless 
provision for the very small quantity generator hazardous waste pilot collection 
program jointly operated by Sanitary Fill Company and the Chief Administrative 
Officer. (Supervisor Hallinan) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended. 

11. File 100-93-2 . Hearing to consider Joint Report by Mayor, Controller, and Budget 
Analyst regarding the 1993-94 fiscal budget year projected revenues and 
expenditures. (Supervisor Migden) 

(Continued from 2/24/93) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to March 3, 1993 meeting. 



City %eport 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 

February 22, 1993 



TO: Budget Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: February 24, 1993 Budget Committee Meeting 

Items 1. 2 and 3 - Files 79-92-3.1. 101-92-36 and 102-92-15 

Note: This item was continued at the February 10,1993 Budget Committee 
meeting. 



Department: 



Items: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development (MO CD) 
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families 
(MOCYF) 

Item 1 - Release of Reserved Funds (File 79-92-3.1) 

Item 2 - Supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92- 
36) for Permanent Salaries, Mandatory Fringe Benefits, 
Other Services and Equipment. 

Item 3 - Ordinance (File 102-92-15) to amend the Annual 
Salary Ordinance to create two new permanent (grant 
funded) positions. 

$100,000 

1993 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program 

The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the Mayor's 
Office of Community Development to apply for, receive and 
expend the City's 1992 Community Development Block Grant 
(CDBG) entitlement from the U. S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Resolution No. 975-92 (File 79-92-3). 
The 1992 CDBG grant, as approved by the Board of 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1993 

Supervisors, includes a $100,000 allocation to the Mayor's 
Office of Children, Youth and their Families (MOCYF) for a 
new program in 1993 (CDBG funds are granted on a calendar 
year basis) entitled the Mayor's Employment Opportunities 
1000 (EO 1000) Program. The goal of the EO 1000 Program is 
to place 1,000 youth graduates of various youth training 
programs into permanent jobs. 

The $100,000 CDBG allocation for the EO 1000 Program 
includes an original estimate of $86,359 for two temporary 
positions to administer the EO 1000 Program and $13,641 
($100,000 less $86,359) for operating costs. The $86,359 was 
reserved pending Civil Service Commission review and 
classification of the two new temporary positions to 
administer the EO 1000 Program. 

The Civil Service Commission has completed their review of 
the two new temporary positions and has classified them. 
Therefore, the conditions for releasing the reserve on the 
$86,359 have been met. However, in order to establish 
accountability and control over the EO 1000 Program, the 
Controller's Office is requiring that the two positions be 
amended into the Annual Salary Ordinance as grant funded 
positions, rather than as temporary positions and that the 
$100,000 allocated to the EO 1000 Program on a grant basis be 
reappropriated to the MOCYF' s regular project budget for the 
salaries and operating costs. 

Although the original intent of the proposed release of 
reserve (Item 3, File 79-92-3.1) was to provide funding for the 
two new temporary positions to administer the EO 1000 
Program and the conditions of the reserve have been met, in 
any case, the reserve on the $86,359 must be released in order 
to effect the reappropriation of the full $100,000 required by 
the Controller's Office to the MOCYF budget for salaries and 
operating expenses. 

The proposed ordinance (Item 4, File 102-92-15) would amend 
the 1992-93 Annual Salary Ordinance to create two new grant 
funded positions to administer the Mayor's EO 1000 Program 
as follows: 

Biweekly Annual 
No. Classification Salary Salary 

2 9736 G Staff Assistant II, Special Project $1,272 $33,199 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (Item 5, 
File 101-92-36) would fund the proposed two new grant funded 
positions, a portion of the MOCYF Director's salary that is 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1993 



considered to be an operating cost of the EO 1000 Program 
and other operating expenses for the 12 month period from 
January 1, through December 31, 1993, as follows: 

Personnel 
Permanent Salaries- Grant Funded Positions 
2 - 9736 G Staff Assistant II (2 x $1,272 x 26.1 bwpp) $66,398 
Estimated 5% COLA 1 for 1993-94 

(2 x $1,272 x 5% x 13.0 bwpp) 1,660 

10% of 9792 Assistant to Mayor VI 2 (Director 
of MOCYF - 10% x $7 1,930) 7.193 

Subtotal - Permanent Salaries $75,251 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 8.675 

Subtotal - Personnel $83,926 

Other Services 
Rent (pro-ration of MOCYF 

office space) and supplies $11,234 

Equipment 4840 

Subtotal - Other Services $16.074 

Total $100,000 

The Mayor's Office of Community Development currently 
contracts with 41 community based non-profit agencies to 
provide 1,712 jobs for youth. The proposed EO 1000 Program 
would be a separate program operated solely by the proposed 
two new positions to provide an additional 1,000 jobs for 
youth. The EO 1000 Program will focus on matching trainees 
of the City's numerous community-based employment 
agencies with existing opportunities for gainful employment 
with local firms. 

Another objective of the EO 1000 Program is to find jobs for 
graduate trainees in the two Department of Social Services 
programs entitled Greater Avenues for Independence 
(GAIN) and General Assistance Training Employment 
Services (GATES). 

The two new grant funded positions will be responsible for 
conducting an intensive outreach program, coordinating 
activities with community based agencies, recruiting 
employers, securing job pledges, screen prospective 



1 MOCYF estimates that the cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the two 9736 Staff 
Assistant II positions will be 5 percent for FY 1993-94. 

2 The MOCYF Director would be supervising the proposed two new employees who are 
fulfilling the objectives of the EO 1000 Program. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1993 

applicants referred by community based agencies and 
referring qualified applicants to employers. According to 
Mr. Al Walker of the Civil Service Commission, the two new 
positions are entry level and will receive direct supervision 
from MOCYF management staff (the MOCYF Director). 

Comments: 1. Mr. Frank Grimmelman of MOCYF advises that the 

MOCYF would find a substantial portion of such added job 
placements with large businesses located in the downtown 
area as the result of the EO 1000 Program and other 
employment programs and contacts developed by the Mayor's 
Office. 

2. The proposed supplemental appropriation should be 
reduced by $10,128 from $100,000 to $89,872 to reflect that the 
starting date for these new positions will be March 9, 1993 
and not January 1, 1993 as had been requested. The required 
funding for the period March 9, 1993 through December 31, 
1993 (21.3 biweekly pay periods), as follows: 

2 - 9736 G Staff Assistant II, Special Project 
(2 x $1,272 x 21.3 bwpp) $54,187 

Estimated 5% COLA for 1993-94 
(2 x $1,272 x 5% x 13.0 bwpp) 1,660 

10% of 9792 Assistant to mayor VI (Director 
of MOCYF - 10% x $71,930) 7.193 

Subtotal - Permanent Salaries $63,040 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 7.845 

Subtotal - Personnel $70,885 

Other Services and Equipment Purchase 16.074 

Total Funding Required $86,959 

Total Requested Funding 100.000 

Savings $13,041 

3. Mr. Anthony Lincoln of MOCYF advises that the proposed 
EO 1000 Program is an MOCD program and not connected 
with the MOCYF operations. Under these circumstances, Mr. 
Lincoln advises that 10 percent of his time would not be used to 
supervise the two new employees who are fulfilling the 
objectives of the EO 1000 Program. Therefore the proposed 
supplemental appropriation ordinance should be further 
reduced to delete funding for the ten percent of the 9792 
Assistant to the Mayor VI position at $7,193 for a total savings 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1993 

of $20,234 ($13,041 from the reduction in salaries for the two 
new positions to reflect the correct effective date of these 
positions plus $7,193 deletion of the ten percent funding of the 
MOCYF Director's salary). 

4. The EO Program, including the proposed two new positions, 
was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors as part of 
the 1993 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 
Program but funds were reserved by the Board pending Civil 
Service Commission review and classification of the two new 
positions. The Civil Service Commission has now completed 
this classification action, consistent with the prior reservation 
of funds by the Board of Supervisors. 

5. Mr. Lincoln advises that MOCYF has reconsidered the need 
for the two additional requested administrative Staff Assistant 
II positions. Mr. Lincoln has advised the Budget Analyst that 
instead of these two administrative positions, he intends to 
issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to youth employment 
program nonprofit agencies in order to select the most 
qualified agency to administer the EO 1000 Program. 
Therefore, the two new positions will not be required and the 
proposed ordinances, Items 2 and 3, Files 101-92-36 
(supplemental appropriation ordinance) and 102-92-15 
(amendment to Annual Salary Ordinance), should be tabled. 
Further, until a nonprofit agency is selected and the related 
cost details are known for this EO 1000 Program, the proposed 
release of funds currently on reserve, (Item 1, File 79-92-3.1), 
should continue to be reserved. 

Recommendations: 1. Table the proposed ordinance (File 102-92-15) to amend the 
Annual Salary Ordinance and table the proposed 
supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92-36) based 
on the representation of the Mayor's Office that the proposed 
EO 1000 Program will be administered by a nonprofit agency 
to be selected through a forthcoming RFP process. 

2. Continue the requested release of reserved funds for 
$100,000 (File 79-92-3.1), pending the selection by the Mayor's 
Office of a nonprofit agency and pending the submission of 
the cost details on the agency's proposal to administer the EO 
1000 Program. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1993 

Item 4 - File 101-92-37 

Department: Airports Commission 



Item: 

Amount: 

Source of 
Funds: 



Description: 



Sources 



Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance for Capital 
Improvement Projects 

$170,474,898 

Proceeds from bond sales, as follows: 



Refunding Bond Series Issue #3 
Refunding Bond Series Issue #4 
Total Source of Funds 



$90,760,038 

79.714.860 

$170,474,898 



The Board of Supervisors previously adopted Resolution No. 
871-92 (File No. 170-92-11) on October 19, 1992, approving the 
issuance of up to $305,000,000 principal amount of San 
Francisco International Airport Second Series Refunding 
Revenue Bonds. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
appropriate the proceeds of Refunding Bond Series Issues #3 
and #4, in the amounts of $90,760,038 and $79,714,860, 
respectively, for a total of $170,474,898, to refund outstanding 
Series E and B Revenue Bonds. Bond proceeds from 
Refunding Bond Series Issue #3 would refund outstanding 
Series E Revenue Bonds and bond proceeds from Refunding 
Bond Series Issue #4 would refund outstanding Series B 
Revenue Bonds. Included in the bond refunding transaction 
would be the return of existing Series E and Series B debt 
service reserve funds from the bond trustee. The sources and 
uses of funds for refunding outstanding Series E and B 
Revenue Bonds would be as follows: 



Net proceed from sale 
of refunding bonds 

Series E and B Debt Service 
Reserve Funds Returned 



Issue 3 

$90,760,038 

8.638.978 



Total Sources of Funds $99,399,016 



Issue 4 

$79,714,860 

7.213.920 
$86,928,780 



BOARD OF ST IPKRVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



to Budget Committee 
ary 24, 1993 






Uses 


Issue 3 
(for Series E) 


Issue 4 
(for Series B) 


Deposit to the Refunding Escrow $91,264,946 


$76,483,156 


Deposit to Debt Service Fund 
Held by Bond Trustee 


480,310 


415,304 


Deposit to the Refunding Bonds 
Debt Service Reserve Fund 


7,285,320 


8,676,841 


Professional Service & Other 
Issuance Costs 


368,440 


323,600 


Deposit to Series B Bond Fund 
(Airfield 832)* 





1.029.879 


Total Appropriation 


$99,399,016 


$86,928,780 



Comments: 1. According to Ms. Angela Gittens of the Airport, the prior 

refunding of Series E and B Bonds with Issue #4 and #3 
Bonds, respectively, will result in savings of approximately 
$12.1 million, due to interest rate reductions of from 7.5 
percent to 6.2 percent and from 6.4 percent to 6.1 percent, 
respectively. 

2. The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance 
represents technical legislation to effect fund transfers that 
are required to conform to the Airport's revenue bond 
covenants. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance. 



1 $l,029,879 of the Series B debt service reserve fund was originally funded from the Airport's 
operating fund. Upon refunding of the Series B Bonds, the Bond Trustee will return those funds to 
the Airport. 

PQA Rn OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1992 



Item 5 - File 101-92-38 



Department 
Item: 

Amount: 



San Francisco International Airport 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance to create an account 
to transfer $25 million to the General Fund as an advance of 
future annual service payments from the Airlines. 

$25 million 



Source of Funds: Airport Capital Project Funds for groundside improvements 

Description: To offset the City's 1992-93 budget shortfall, the Mayor's Office 

proposed that the Airport advance $25 million of surplus 
funds from the Airport's Capital Improvement Fund to the 
City's General Fund. The Board of Supervisors approved a 
resolution (File 27-92-11) in December, 1992 that authorized 
an agreement by and between the City, the Airports 
Commission and the 19 airlines operating at San Francisco 
International Airport regarding this $25 million advance 
payment to the City. 

The $25 million advance will be repaid to the Airport from 
future, annual payments of Airport concession revenues to 
the General Fund. Currently, the Airport is required to pay 
15 percent of its gross receipts received from concession 
revenues to the City's General Fund. This payment is 
estimated at $15 million for Fiscal Year 1992-93. The annual 
payment from the Airport to the City of 15 percent of 
concession revenues is in accordance with the Airport's 1981 
Lease and Use Agreement (settlement agreement). 

The $25 million advance was agreed to by the 19 airlines 
which are signatory to the 1981 settlement agreement. The 
previously noted payments from Airport concession revenues 
to the City's General Fund are paid to the City on a quarterly 
basis. The $25 million advanced to the City in the 1992-93 
fiscal year would be deducted from future year concession 
revenue payments due from the Airport to the City's General 
Fund. The $25 million advance is to be entirely repaid by the 
City after seven years, according to Ms. Angela Gittens of the 
Airport. Ms. Gittens advises that the impact of the repayment 
to the Airport is expected to diminish as Airport concession 
revenues increase, thereby resulting in increased 
concessions revenue payments from the Airport to the City's 
General Fund. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1992 

Comments: 1. In accordance with its previously approved $25 million 

advance agreement, the City is required to pay interest on the 
$25 million advance. The rate of this interest is equal to either 
the interest rate of the Treasurer's pooled cash investment 
fund, or the interest rate of the Airport bonds that are issued, 
whichever is higher. Establishing the interest rate in this 
way guarantees that the $25 million loan will earn as much 
for the Airport as would be earned on the funds if the Airport 
had not made the advance. 

2. The $25 million advance from the Airport to the City is to be 
transferred to the City on June 30, 1993. The repayment of the 
advance by the City to the Airport is to be made on a quarterly 
basis beginning September 30, 1993. Based on an estimated 
interest rate of 6.5 percent, the City's General Fund will be 
required to repay $1,625,000 (0.065 x $25 million) in interest 
during FY 1993-94 or $406,250 per quarter. The quarterly 
payment mechanism consists of the Airport deducting an 
estimated $406,250 from its estimated $3.75 million quarterly 
concession revenue payment (one quarter of the $15 million 
annual payment) to the City's General Fund, so that the City 
will receive an estimated net amount of $3,343,750 quarterly 
in 1993-94 ($3,750,000 less $406,250). 

3. The $1,625,000 to be paid by the City to the Airport for the 
first year will consist entirely of interest payments, and will 
not diminish the principal amount owed. In accordance with 
the previously approved advance agreement, the City is to 
begin making payments toward the principal during the 
second year (Fiscal Year 1994-95) of the advance agreement. 

4. The $25 million advance from the Airport benefits the City 
because it ameliorates the large budget reductions over the 
balance of Fiscal Year 1992-93 that would otherwise have to 
have been made in order to compensate for the loss of State 
funding. 

5. The Airport and the Controller's Office indicate that the 
proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance is technical 
legislation that is necessary in order to create an account 
from which to transfer the $25 million advance from the 
Airport to the City's General Fund. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1993 

Item 6 - File 101-92-39 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 

Source of 
Funds: 



Airports Commission 

Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance for Capital 
Improvement Projects 

$27,373,875 



Interest earned on capital proj ect funds : 

Airport Capital Improvement Fund $ 6,422,067 
(originally funded from the operating budget) 

1967 General Obligation Bonds 42,174 

1975 Series A Revenue Bonds 220,079 

1977 Series B Revenue Bonds 363,668 

1981 Series C Revenue Bonds 1,623,661 

1983 Series D Revenue Bonds 1,785,509 

1990 Series E Revenue Bonds 4.844.057 

Sub-total, Interest earned $15,301,215 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) Earthquake repair 

reimburs ement and fuel spill 

clean-up reimbursements from 

insurance proceeds 12.072,660 

Total Source of Funds $27,373,875 



Description: The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 

appropriate the unreserved fund balances shown above to 
restore various Airport "Cost Centers 1 " from which funds 
were previously used to provide funding for the following 
purposes: (1) repair of damage caused by the 1989 Loma 
Prieta earthquake and the November 18, 1988, Airport fuel 
spill (total of $12,072,660); and (2) funding a portion 
($15,301,215) of the $25 million in capital project funds that is 
to be advanced to the City's General Fund by the Airport 
($12,072,660 plus $15,301,215 equals $27,373,875). 



lA Cost Center is a functional area used by the Airport to account for 
revenues, expenses, and debt service, including revenues and expenses for 
capital projects. 

HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1993 



Comments: 



The proposed supplemental appropriation would restore 
funding to the following Airport "Cost Centers:" 

Airfield Area Capital Improvement Projects $27,111,622 
Includes all common use landing areas, 
runways, taxiways, ramps, aprons, adjacent 
infield areas, and related support facilities. 

Terminal Area Capital Improvement Projects 262.253 

Includes all areas within the terminal 

complex, including concourses, boarding 

areas, pedestrian bridges, tunnel lobbies to 

garages, central plant and boiler rooms, 

lobbies, offices, Airport Commission 

facilities, baggage facilities, and storage 

areas. 

/ 

Total $27,373,875 



1. The Board of Supervisors approved a resolution (File 27-92- 
11) in December, 1992, that authorized an agreement by and 
between the City, the Airports Commission and the 19 
airlines operating at San Francisco International Airport 
regarding a $25 million advance payment to the City. Item 5, 
File 101-92-38 of this report is a supplemental appropriation 
ordinance to create an Airport account to facilitate the 
transfer of the $25 million advance from the Airport's capital 
improvement projects to the City's General Fund. $15,301,215 
of the proposed $27,373,875 supplemental appropriation 
request, from unexpended Airport interest income, would be 
used to restore funds to Airport capital improvement project 
cost centers that had been previously used as the source for 
$15,301,215 of the total $25 million advance. 

2. The remaining $12,072,660 from FEMA and insurance 
reimbursements ($27,373,875 less the $15,301,215 used as part 
of the $25 million advance) of the proposed supplemental 
appropriation request would be used to restore funds to 
Airport cost centers that were previously used to fund 
emergency projects performed by the Airport under the 
provisions of Section 6.30 of the City's Administrative Code 
for earthquake repairs and fuel spill cleanup. 

Recommendation; Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1992 



Item 7 - File 101-92-41 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 



District Attorney 
Family Support Bureau 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance for Permanent 
Salaries - Miscellaneous and related Mandatory Fringe 
Benefits, Telephone and Services of Other Departments - City 
Mail Services 

$320,546 



Source of Funds: New State and Federal Aid for Child Support Enforcement 

Description: Under the provisions of SB 1503 the State has appropriated 

$10 million to California counties for "creative and innovative 
ideas" relative to the Child Support Enforcement Program. 
Pursuant to the provisions of SB 1503, the State funds are to be 
used for new projects that will increase the recovery of 
welfare aid paid to the families of absent parents. (When the 
Family Support Bureau receives a payment from an absent 
parent for child support, part of the payments are turned over 
to the State as a partial recovery of the State's cost of welfare 
aid to the family of the absent parent.) The State's intent is to 
both explore new methods for increasing the recovery of 
welfare aid and to actually increase the amount recovered. 
Ms. Edwina Young, Director of the Family Support Bureau, 
estimates that the City should receive approximately $400,000 
in revenue as a result of the proposed new six-month 
program. The Controller's Office has certified new revenues 
in the amount of $320,545 as the source for the proposed 
supplemental appropriation ordinance. 

The Family Support Bureau proposes a new program for a 
six-month period to conduct focused reviews of existing case 
files in order to update and increase child support payment 
levels based on changes in the earning and financial status of 
the absent parents. Project staff will take necessary legal 
actions to modify (increase child support payment levels) a 
minimum of 3,000 child support court orders by October 13, 
1993, as required by recently (December, 1992) enacted federal 
regulations. (The new Federal regulations were enacted 
subsequent to SB 1503 but pertain to the same subject.) 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1992 



Comments: 



The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
fund the new program for six months, as follows: 



Permanent Salaries-Miscellaneous 


$254,331 


Mandatory Fringe Benefits 


56,214 


Telephone 


4,960 


Services of Other Departments- 




City Mail Services 


5,040 



Total 



$320,545 



The proposed new program would not fund new positions but 
instead would increase the existing, approved District 
Attorney's 1992-93 budget by putting new money into positions 
that are being intentionally kept vacant in order to achieve 
Salary Savings. The Controller's Office indicates that new 
employees can be hired into the existing positions on a 
temporary basis. The Family Support Bureau proposes to fill 
nine existing vacant positions previously authorized by the 
Board of Supervisors. These nine positions which would be 
filled a temporary basis are as follows: 



1-8180 Principal Attorney 
2 - 8178 Senior Trial Attorney 
6_ - 8176 Trial Attorney 

9 Total Permanent Salaries-Misc. 



$49,068 

40,364 

164.899 

$254,331 



1. Ms. Young indicates that based on the enactment of SB 
1503, the Family Support Bureau initially formulated the 
proposed new program. With the subsequent enactment of 
the new federal regulations, Ms. Young indicates that the 
proposed new program will also enable the City to comply 
with requirements of the new Federal regulations to update 
all cases that have not been updated for over three years. 

2. As previously noted, the proposed new program does not 
result in the addition of any new positions and the nine staff 
persons that will be hired for the program to fill the existing 
vacant positions will be hired on a temporary basis. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1993 

Items 8 and 9 - File - 27-93-1 and 27-93-1 1 

Department: San Francisco International Airport 

Item: Resolution finding that the schedule of rates and charges for outdoor (not 

in a hanger) aircraft storage established by the Airports Commission 
effective March 1, 1993 will be sufficient to pay for maintenance and 
operation expenses of the Airport and will not require any tax subsidy (File 
27-93-1). 

Resolution approving changes to the schedule of rates and charges for 
common use facilities at San Francisco International Airport as established 
by the Airports Commission (File 27-93-1.1). 

Description: The proposed resolutions concern the establishment of increased aircraft 
storage rates for general aviation and commercial aircraft. The Airport last 
increased aircraft storage fees on July 1, 1986. The proposed fee increases 
are scheduled to take effect on March 1, 1993. 

The proposed hourly outdoor aircraft storage rates for both general 
aviation and commercial aircraft are based on the weight of the aircraft. 
The current fee schedule and the proposed fee schedule effective March 1, 
1993, for the outdoor storage of general aviation and commercial aircraft, 
are as follows: 





First 8 Hours Each Additional 






Maximum 


Or Fraction 8 Hours or 






Weight 


Thereof Fraction Thereof 


Monthlv Rate 


General Aviation Aircraft (private planes) 










Current Proposed Current 


Proposed 


Current 


Proposed 


- 5,000 lbs 


$8 $12 $2 


$2 


$68 


$85 


5,001 - 10,000 


8 12 2 


2 


99 


124 


10,001 - 15,000 


11 15 3 


3 


132 


155 


15,001 - 26,000 


11 15 4 


4 


165 


194 


26,001 - 50,000 


12 17 5 


5 


198 


233 


50,001 - 75,000 


14 19 5 


5 


231 


271 


75,001 - 150,000 


i 18 23 8 


9 


329 


387 


150,001 & over 


30 38 14 


16 


591 


694 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1993 





First 8 Hours 


Each Additional 






Maximum 


Or 


Fraction 


8 Hours or 






Weight 


Thereof 


Fraction Thereof 


Monthly Rate 


Commercial Aircraft (commercial 


cargo carriers) 








Current Proposed 


Current 


Proposed 


Current 


Proposed 


- 5,000 lbs 


$8 


$85 


$2 


$20 


$68 


$1,300 


5,001 - 10,000 


8 


85 


2 


20 


99 


1,300 


10,001 - 15,000 


11 


85 


3 


20 


132 


1,300 


15,001 - 26,000 


11 


85 


4 


20 


165 


1,300 


26,001 - 50,000 


12 


85 


5 


20 


198 


1,300 


50,001 - 75,000 


14 


85 


5 


20 


231 


1,300 


75,001 - 150,000 


18 


85 


8 


20 


329 


1,300 


150,001 - 165,000 


30 


85 


14 


20 


591 


1,300 


165,001 & more 


30 


85 


14 


20 


591 


1,460 


Comments: 1. 


Accc 


>rding to Mr. 


John Martin of the Airport 


the proposed 


schedule 



storage rates, plus the Airport's other existing rates and charges will be 
sufficient to cover the Fiscal Year 1992-93 Airport total operating costs and 
therefore a tax subsidy from the City's General Fund will not be necessary 
for 1992-93. Mr. Martin advises that the Airport's operating costs for 1992- 
93 total approximately $200 million which will be covered by $100 million 
in concession revenues, $52 million in landing fees and airline terminal 
rentals, $9 million in the resale of utilities and $39 million in airline 
rentals outside of the terminal. 

2. According to Mr. Marcus Perro of the Airport, the current fee schedule 
generates approximately $64,000 annually in revenues from the outdoor 
storage of general aviation and commercial aircraft. Mr. Perro advises that 
the proposed increase in outdoor aircraft storage fees will generate an 
additional $36,000 annually for a total of $100,000, or a 56 percent 
increase, in annual revenues. Mr. Perro advises that from the total annual 
amount of $100,000, approximately $76,696 (77%) of outdoor storage 
revenues would be attributed to the storage of general aviation aircraft and 
approximately $23,304 (23%) of outdoor storage revenues would be 
attributed to the storage of commercial aircraft. The Budget Analyst 
concurs with the Airport's calculations of the increase in revenue resulting 
from the proposed rate increases. 

3. According to Mr. Martin, the Airport has not increased outdoor aircraft 
storage rates since July 1, 1986. The proposed increase in storage rates 
represents an average increase of approximately 20 percent in general 
aircraft storage compared to 1986 rates. The proposed increase in storage 
rates for commercial aircraft storage represents an average increase of 
approximately 700 percent as compared to 1986 rates. Mr. Martin states 
that the proposed increase for outdoor storage rates is to partially recover 
the costs associated with the rental value of the land, the debt service 
expense of pavement, and maintenance of pavement. Mr. Martin advises 
that additional increases will be proposed in the future, subject to approval 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1993 



of the Board of Supervisors. According to Mr. Martin, although the costs 
directly associated with outdoor storage of aircraft will not be fully 
recovered through storage fees for three more years, no General Fund 
subsidy is necessary because the Airport's revenues for landing fees are 
sufficient to compensate for the excess of storage costs over storage 
revenues. 

4. Mr. Martin advises that even with the significantly higher proposed 
increases for commercial aircraft (averaging approximately 700 percent), 
the proposed monthly storage rates for commercial aircraft at San 
Francisco International Airport would still be lower than rates charged by 
comparable airports. Mr. Martin provided the following monthly outdoor 
commercial aircraft storage rates for five comparable airports: 



Airport 


Monthlv Rate 


Washington National 


$2,300 


JFK 


2,196 


La Guardia 


2,196 


Dallas 


915 


Los Angeles 


1,738 


San Francisco 


1,300 (proposed) 



5. Mr. Martin reports that the adoption of the proposed outdoor storage 
fees for general aviation and commercial aircraft will not affect the 
Airport's expected advance of concession revenues to the City's General 
Fund. Mr. Martin advises that revenues generated through such storage 
fees are not considered concession revenues under the existing Lease and 
Use Agreement. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolutions. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1993 

Item 10 - File 128-93-1 

Department: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Item: Resolution approving a hold harmless provision for the Very 

Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste Pilot Collection 
Program jointly operated by the Sanitary Fill Company and 
the Chief Administrative Officer. 

Description: The CAO reports that the California Health & Safety Code, 

Section 25158.1, permits local governments which operate 
household hazardous waste collection programs, and persons 
operating household hazardous waste collection programs 
under agreement with local governments, to accept hazardous 
waste from Very Small Quantity Generators (VSQGs). VSQGs 
are businesses that generate less than 100 kilograms of 
hazardous waste materials in a month. 

The Sanitary Fill Company has been operating a household 
hazardous waste collection facility in the City since 1988 and 
has recently submitted a Notice-of-Intent to the State Office of 
Permit Assistance for the expansion of this facility. The 
proposed facility expansion would include the establishment of 
a permanent VSQG Collection Program. 

The CAO believes that a VSQG hazardous waste collection 
program will help to minimize the amount of hazardous waste 
materials contained in the solid wastes that go to the 
Altamount Landfill for disposal. In order to assist in the design 
of the proposed permanent VSQG Collection Program, the CAO 
entered into an agreement with the Sanitary Fill Company for 
a pilot project, which entailed the collection of hazardous waste 
materials from VSQGs, on three separate days in 1992, at the 
Sanitary Fill Company's household hazardous waste collection 
facility. The CAO advises that over the three day period a total 
of 2,232 gallons of hazardous waste materials, 450 pounds of 
asbestos, and 117 aerosol cans were collected from 139 
participating businesses. According to the CAO, 65 percent of 
the participating businesses asked to have at least one day a 
month set aside for VSQG hazardous waste collection. 

The CAO is now proposing to enter into an amended 
agreement with the Sanitary Fill Company to provide for the 
collection of hazardous waste materials from VSQG on three 
additional days, at the Sanitary Fill Company's household 
hazardous waste collection facility. The CAO advises that the 
three additional days would provide further opportunity for 
gathering additional information to assist in the development 
of the permanent VSQG Collection Program. The amended 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1993 

agreement outlines the procedures that the Sanitary Fill 
Company must follow in receiving and handling hazardous 
waste materials from VSQGs. It also provides that the City 
agrees to be responsible for and holds Sanitary Fill Harmless 
from the perpetual liability associated with the disposal of the 
hazardous waste collected from VSQGs. The amended 
agreement contains the following provisions: 

1. The City agrees that for the additional three days in 
which hazardous waste materials are collected from 
VSQGs, the City would accept responsibility and liability 
for this hazardous waste collection as defined in 
applicable Federal and State hazardous waste laws. 

2. The City agrees that for the additional three days in 
which hazardous waste materials are collected from 
VSQGs the City would hold the Sanitary Fill Company 
harmless from any loss, costs, expenses, claims, penalties, 
fines, settlements, forfeitures and suits (including costs of 
defense, settlement, expert witness fees, and attorneys' 
fees) which arise directly or indirectly from the Sanitary 
Fill Company being held liable or responsible for the 
hazardous waste received from VSQGs, at its household 
hazardous waste collection facility. The exception to this 
provision would be those losses, costs, expenses, claims, 
penalties, fines, settlements, forfeitures, and suits 
(including costs of defense, settlement, expert witness fees 
and attorneys' fees) caused by the Sanitary Fill 
Company's failure to operate or manage the household 
hazardous waste collection facility in accordance with (1) 
the terms of the proposed amended agreement and (2) in 
good faith compliance with applicable State and Federal 
laws. 

Comment: Ms. Elaine Warren of the City Attorney's Office reports that 

the proposed hold harmless agreement has been reviewed and 
approved as to form. Ms. Warren advises that the proposed 
hold harmless agreement is similar to the hold harmless 
provisions contained in the original VSQG agreement and the 
Household Hazardous Waste Facility agreement between the 
City and Sanitary Fill Company. Both of these hold harmless 
provisions previously were approved by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Budget Committee 
February 24, 1993 



Item 11 - File 100-93-2 

Note: This item was continued at the February 17, 1993 Budget Committee 
meeting. 

1. This item is a hearing is to consider the Controller's report of February 4, 
1993 pertaining to the projected financial condition of the City and County which 
shows a projected deficit of $5.5 million for Fiscal Year 1992-93 if no action is taken 
to correct the situation. 

2. The Budget Committee continued this item and requested that the 
Mayor's Office present to the Committee its fiscal plan to resolve the projected 
Fiscal Year 1992-93 deficit (previously estimated at $5.5 million) and to report on 
the status of the pending supplemental appropriation requests and the priority of 
such requests which are presently being held by the Controller. Additionally, the 
Committee requested that the Mayor's Office advise the Committee on any 
preliminary information available regarding the formulation of the forthcoming 
Fiscal Year 1993-94 budget. 

3. Ms. Teresa Serata of the Mayor's Office states that she has not completed 
her analysis as of the writing of this report and that she will make her report 
directly to the Budget Committee at the hearing on February 24, 1993. 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Shelley 
President Alioto 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Bierman 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



2^